Traditionis Custodes Part 1: Analysis and commentary of Paragraphs 1-4 Including sub-paragraphs

Hello everyone,

As promised I will comment on the new restrictive Motu Proprio, Traditionis Custodes, issued by Pope Francis regarding the Latin Mass in the Church, immediately acting. 

My first post, part 1. will be a literal dissection, covering simply the act itself of the first half of the document, paragraphs 1 to 4 of the 8 articles and their sub-articles.

There is a lot of ground to cover here, 8 articles in all, but I’ll look at each one and offer general Church commentary at the end.

 

“ Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. “

Pope Francis is reiterating that the current liturgy of the Roman Rite 3rd edition post Vatican II IS the regular form of the Mass for the Roman Rite, the dominant rite in the Church and in the World. This was always so even with Summorum Pontificum. Sadly he has to state this again because some people think that the Novus Ordo/Ordinary Form is a “bastard rite.” Notice he didn’t say that the EF was abrogated and/or are banned. 

“ Art. 2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him, [5] to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese. [6] Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.”  

Now here is where the start of the new laws took place. This is NOT out of thin air. The footnotes are key here. However, one who understands hierarchy in the Church, would NOT be surprised. The Pope, as per Pastor Aeternus aka Vatican I, in chapter 3 paragraph 2 states: “ 2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. “ Discipline clearly extends to the Liturgy of the Mass. He alone is the prime governor of all major matters in the Church. 

Also Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei says …. “ 44. Since, therefore, it is the priest chiefly who performs the sacred liturgy in the name of the Church, its organization, regulation and details cannot but be subject to Church authority... 57. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches... 58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; ….  no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.“

Dare I say it, these prior documents of importance in the Church of the Vatican I council AND prior to Vatican II makes it abundantly clear: the Pope is the final say on matters liturgical and even to protect the liturgy from abuse from ANY and ALL individuals who dare abuse it as a weapon or an instrument of corruption which sadly both priests and laity have done. Whether it’s via the Internet or actual liturgy on the ground, layperson or clergy, it’s clear that what Pope Francis has done IS within his power and acting as Head of the Church on earth as per these pre-Vatican II documents. 

As for the Bishops, they are the ordinary judges, and actors, and even “officers” of a diocese that are responsible not only in upholding the Teachings of the Church but also govern Liturgical matters. As our government cannot uphold civil and criminal laws without judges and ordinary police officers to enforce it, that is an analogue to what the bishops are. They are the Pope’s “middle managers” as it is who are to carry out said instructions in ecclesiastical law, including liturgy. 

But …. This is the start of now granting direct control to the bishops …. which is a “mixed bag” of sorts. On the one hand, lazy bishops MUST now control the distribution of the EF in the diocese. As this is such a divisive issue in the Church it now MUST be addressed. They cannot sit back and let it just happen. In a positive way they can now root/weed out the vile and rebellious clergy and lay leaders who have poisoned the Latin Mass and led to T.C. being promulgated. HOWEVER … not all dioceses are blessed with a laissez-faire bishop. Sadly and truly, especially in the USA, numerous dioceses have now had notices to their priests/parishes and while I am awaiting names, after this past Sunday (cause with COVID parishes are booking mass slots) those EF masses are stopped …. Gone …. hence liberal or EF hating bishops are able to abuse their power to kill the Latin Mass, and are doing so. 

And unfortunately Francis’ mindset is geared on only the few bad apples spoiling the bunch while the regular good souls are to suffer and clericalist bishops are allowed to be cruel to those good souls attach to the EF. This is the expression “using a sledgehammer to swat a fly” when a fly swatter would have been reasonable. 

“ Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:

§ 1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;”

Now this is where I say good show Francis! Too many clergy and lay leaders exist, despite being more of a minority, who are poisoning from other laity and clergy, especially youth under 40, with radical Traditonalist garbage! Even Pope Benedict Emeritus XVI made it clear to respect both the EF and OF in Article 1 of SP. If these groups or at the very least the leaders (both clergy and laymen down to little Timmy the torchbearer, though little Timmy is just parroting what his parents, friends, older adults and priests are teaching him,) are becoming weapons of schism, that Latin Mass is truly a weapon against the Church, the Holy Father, and the eternal salvation of the souls within. 

Even sadder, this has morphed into a hideous monster with former President Donald Trump applauding now disgraced (in terms of credibility) Archbishop Vigano in the USA, prior to the 2020 election, adding right wing political extremism to the radical Traditonalism of Latin Massers who idolized Vigano. 

In short thank God the Church via Francis has given bishops greater ability to protect younger lay faithful from these evil leaders. 

However …. That being said, what if a bishop’s outlook is liberal to the extreme? Will he not allow even the modest “The Latin mass draws me closer with tradition, symbolism …” etc should he be conducting a witch-hunt in his eccleastical “kangaroo court,” looking for any reason to cancel a Latin Mass or a priest? Abuse of power and clericalism, the very things Francis abhors, now can be used against honest lay faithful and priests attached or doing the EF.

“ § 2. is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes);”

Now this is where I find His Holiness’ restriction to be somewhat cruel to the faithful and good priests who do/attend the Latin Mass. Mr Liberal bishop will see  this and say, YES! Now i can kick those scumbags out of my diocesan parishes and give them nothing! No altar, no liturgical items or vestments, no mass. Sadly there will be bishops who will take this to the extreme and force the faithful out of ANY place with an altar. And in more rural dioceses, there may be no legitimate Catholic chapels OR monasteries/Nun’s convents to have the EF. So where does Fr Latin Mass do the Mass? Someone’s kitchen table? A Garage? A log in a forest (Ironically speaking this HAS been done before in Canada with the Novus Ordo by Jesuits associated with the centre in Guelph, ON. See here.) Actually it could be said reverently outdoors, see here at The New Liturgical Movement website [personal edit: in an ironic silver lining looks like he will be increasing business and the demand for personal/portable carry altars like these ones!]

Not only does this denigrate the faithful attending the mass, but this is only possible IF the group/priest has their/his own liturgicals and/or vestments. Further this will drive these faithful underground and separate them from the regular Church which is the OPPOSITE of what T.C. and it’s accompanying letter implies. And where else will they go?The SSPX! This will further make the faithful hate the Church, Francis, and the ordinary Form Mass/liturgy and oh yeah, likely damn them to self-schism and eternal hellfire, taking their families too if they have kids and raise them in that environment. Not to mention these Good traditionalists (and bad ones too) will not be giving their hard-earned coin back into the coffers of the Catholic Church and the poor. 

Is there any good here in this subsection? Yes. Reasonable bishops who take the time to evaluate this situation, and/or do not have a plethora of groups can control the dispersion of the Latin Mass, and/or, if said infrastructure (with or without EF specific chaplain) is in place, they can simply let what is established remain, and improve or create the infrastructure to what was once loosely based single offerings/groups here and there …. While adhering to subsection 1. 

“ § 3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962. [7] In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences;”

OK …. This is a little much to peer at for this layman. Now, likely by “Eucharistic celebrations” this refers to the Mass (re: EF liturgy.) My guess of the basic interpretation, is that the bishop controls which feast days in the Latin Mass Calendar the said designated locations/sites/ offerings can have the Latin Mass. Unfortunately it seems that the bishop interpreting the clause will determine how often the Latin Mass gets said in a particular diocese. This could be anything from only 1st class feast days at the least, to daily and Sunday obligation Masses including Christmas and the Triduum if the Bishop is lenient or sympathetic to an already established community. 

Now, the sentence about the readings in the vernacular? This was not thought out well. You ABSOLUTELY cannot perform ANY liturgy of any rite in the Church without reading the prescribed parts. Now if an option is permitted in any liturgy by the Church (e.g. the utterly lazy options in Scripture in the Novus Ordo to shorten them, choice of Eucharistic Prayers, choice of response to “the mystery of Faith” …) that’s fine, but in the Latin Mass there is NO option. The readings MUST be read in Latin. Not only would it be a distraction to have English readings of Scripture ONLY vs the Latin of the rest of the Mass, how would one apply the tones of chanting to reading English Scripture in the Missa Cantata and Higher? Obviously what must be done NOT to invalidate the Liturgy is to say the reading in Latin first as prescribed and then say the English translation after the Gospel (and Incensing post-Gospel in higher levels). 

Sadly this could lead to liturgical policemen for dioceses reporting to their liberal bishops and allow them to wield TC as a weapon to shut it down, lacking any common sense. Stupidity at its finest and somehow I doubt Pope Francis would be that stupid to make something like this. I smell another member of the Curia in this with no understanding of the Latin Mass. 

“ § 4. to appoint a priest who, as delegate of the bishop, is entrusted with these celebrations and with the pastoral care of these groups of the faithful. This priest should be suited for this responsibility, skilled in the use of the Missale Romanum antecedent to the reform of 1970, possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts, and be animated by a lively pastoral charity and by a sense of ecclesial communion. This priest should have at heart not only the correct celebration of the liturgy, but also the pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful;”

Ok right here there is a error, but its an understandable gaffe. There WAS an intermittent revision to the Missale Romanum from 1965-1969. It was close to what the Anglican Ordinate have for their liturgy with Latin and some shortening of prayers (eg Prayers at the foot of the altar reduced,) so this is factually incorrect. However, Francis and the Curia members involved in TC either forgot this or dismiss the MR 1.0 Novus Ordo liturgy as a forgotten footnote because for the majority of their lifespan they dealt with the MR 2.0 revision from 1970-2011. 

Now this chunk in terms of the law should be divided into two parts, the first part being about competency of the priest. YES, exactly a priest should be competent in carrying out the Tridentine Liturgy/Latin Mass. Between many additional/different actions the priest does vs Novus Ordo Mass, how to properly say the Latin, understanding the old rite calendar and differences (eg liturgical colours, levels of feasts, periods of calendar …) they can’t just wing this form of the Mass or gasp! Ad lib it as has been sadly done on many occasions in the Novus Ordo by Fr Prideful and Pompous. I have no question here. Of course HOW to become competent in the Latin Mass …. That’s up to the priest himself. My recommendation would be to take formal courses held by the FSSP/ICKSP etc. As there would be written records, receipts/payments, maybe a nice certificate etc. to have evidence of competency and training. 

However said training will likely be out of the priests’ pockets or donations as after this anti-Traditonalist document, there is NO damn way most bishops will support the training of a priest in the EF financially or spiritually, unless that bishops hand is forced by Rome to make even one paltry offering for a presence of faithful who want it in their diocese (though likely the case would be more to NOT lose the faithful to the SSPX.) 

Now the second part, is highly prevalent. It’s not just correct liturgy, but it’s about the right ATTITUDE and INTENTION as well as proper care of the faithful. I am in full support of this. Should one read the accompanying letter to TC it’s clear that priests and others in their communities were leading the faithful to attack the Church, Pope Francis, the Novus Ordo/Vernacular liturgy etc. If the priest is schismatic in mind and heart and corrupting mentally and spiritually the “sheep” he must “shepherd” he is doing Satan’s work and turning people against the Communal Body of Christ! Also from a Mass perspective a priest to offer the Mass validly must use proper matter, conduct proper form (according to the liturgical books,) AND have proper INTENTION for the Mass. If HE is in a schismatic, anti-Francis/Pope or Anti-Vatican II mindset, he has made the Mass invalid and Null. And sadly THIS sickness and poisoning of the laity and clergy, manifested in vile outward behaviour amongst Trads themselves, one’s Catholic neighbours and non-Catholics (eg extreme insistence on EENS/No salvation outside the Church) is exactly why this paragraph is needed. 

On a small practical note, it seems that an EF chaplain setup is being promoted via this paragraph and it does usually work well. It also parallels other special minority provisions in the Church (eg Charismatic groups, Anglican Ordinate, …) that KEEP people attached while nourishing them spiritually in a specific way or accustomed to their culture/past spiritual background/unique way to speak to their souls.

§ 5. to proceed suitably to verify that the parishes canonically erected for the benefit of these faithful are effective for their spiritual growth, and to determine whether or not to retain them;

This I say is simple prudence. An analogy would be a company or business. The goal of the company or business is to make profit via conducting business which includes the sale of goods. If a company is costing more to run and/or using more money than it is making on its service/products it must either stop its wastage, cut its costs, or fire employees to continue to remain aloft. It’s budget it entirely dependent on the product it sells or the business it conducts, and the old economic principle of supply and demand. 

While an imperfect analogy it’s basic concepts ALSO apply to worship in the church. It’s main goal is to SERVE people. Now, while there is much that can be argued about the poor implementation of the Novus Ordo Mass, especially after the 1970/MR 2nd revision combined with post-conciliar liturgy documents, regardless bishop MUST be prudent (not just as a personal virtue) in how they are to serve the faithful best and WITNESS to those outside the Church, with the liturgy/worship as a primary means. So at its base level, a bishop has to determine whether it should use its limited resources (eg its parishes and priests) to hold Latin Mass, based on the demand in their diocese. 

More so, one of the very reasons Francis did this was because of the Anti-Church, Anti-Novus Ordo, Anti-Papal attacks and attitudes of a number of these wayward movements. Is everyone like this in the TLM? NO! However a sizeable number of clergy and even lay people (with or without accompanying tabloid blogs and websites eg RorHATE Caeli) clearly presented enough of a concern to Francis that this clause got inserted. It’s good that this coincides with Sub-clause 4 as those “renegade” environments and priests who have made the Latin Mass a weapon and corrupted the lay faithful (especially the youth!) deserve to be shut down. 

However my caveat, is again, Liberal or EF hating bishops abusing their power to wipe it out completely with little to no recourse or appeal to counter the bishops’ clericalism and abuse of power. 

§ 6. to take care not to authorize the establishment of new groups.

The bad: It’s plain as day. Pope Francis does NOT want the Latin Mass to grow exponentially. 

The good: This does NOT 100% ban new groups or communities from forming, or the bishops to bring in the FSSP/ICKSP/Institute Bon Pasteur (or of the Good Shepherd)/Canons of New Jerusalem into an existing diocese if they have a parish for them to inhabit. 

Stay tuned for part two of my analysis of the paragraphs of Traditionis Custodes, and then, my personal opinions and advice about the need for TC related to the Archdiocese of Toronto and my experience dealing with the Latin Mass in this diocese. 

Pax Tibi Christi, Julian Barkin. 

Two Notes this Canada Day

Hello Everyone,

Just two brief notes of importance today:

1) It is Canada Day today, the birthday of my sovereign Nation. Happy Birthday Canada, and Happy Canada Day to all of us north of the 44, as they say.

2) On a sadder note, Georg Ratzinger, brother of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, has died today and with greatest of hopes, may he be able to join our Lord in Heaven. Requiescat in Pace.

Pax, Julian.

Summorum Pontificum 7 Year Anniversary: General and Specific Reflection from a Young Adult Altar Server

One note before I begin. I am turning off comments for this post as I am getting personal about my experiences with the Latin Mass. Certain readers and/or bloggers might not like it, but this is my blog, and my experiences. I don't need more headaches this week anyways ..... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _- _

Hello everyone.


Yesterday was an important day in the EF of the Roman rite. It was the 7th anniversary of the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, released by Benedict (Emeritus) XVI. This is THE document that gave Catholics much freedom to celebrate the Latin Mass without persecution from bishops and controlling priests. This post will be an overall, but also personal reflection, to me of where it has taken the Laity and myself, and what needs to be done to keep it going strong.

The past 7 years generally

Since it's release, more and more priests and parishes are embracing the Latin Mass with gusto. The gamut ranges wide from the occasional, monthly mass, to full blown daily Mass communities and introduction of EF societies and personal prelatures (e.g. FSSP, ICKSP) in dioceses worldwide. Furthermore, practices surrounding the TLM are even being embraced in Novus Ordo Church culture, such as sung Latin hymns and chants in the Mass, ad orientem worship, and even traditional catholic practices like Eucharistic processions. Some parishes have even limited their serving core regardless of the form of the Mass to boys only, and these dioceses have seen an enormous surge in vocations to the priesthood.


However, as many good advances there have been in such a culture, Satan has been immensely on the prowl, trying his best to poison this deadly weapon against him. Because these traditionalists won't fall for the heresies and modernism of the usual Church culture, he's gone the opposite way, attacking it through radical extremism/Pharisaic-ism. Sadly, numerous web bloggers and even certain members of a priestly fraternity have been more than happy to fall on he opposite side of the narrow gate, and have become the Church's, newest, roadblock to the proliferation of Traditional Catholicism. 

And their actions haven't gone unnoticed by the Vatican, so much so, Pope Francis has taken afew well- needed stabs at their dismal actions in his daily Fervorinos in the Santa Marta chapel.(Hey! The Vicar of Christ, is acting just like Christ did ... he's calling out the Pharisees! Ha Ha ha!) He even was so bold as to call out the Trads Behaving Badly in his Apostolic Letter, Evangelii Gaudium, in paragraph 94 as the "neo-Pelagians." In addition, not all priests and bishops have been on board with the "reform of the reform" as it were. In certain cases, such as with Una Voce Costa Rica, and recently, the sacking of Fr. Wylie in New York under Cardinal Dolan, not all is good and well in Traddie Land. At least, there are some examples where the Church has appropriately intervened when Trads have gone Bad, such as with the Franciscans of the Friars Immaculate, and Fisher More College under the archdiocese's bishop. 

Regardless, there is clearly still an antagonism in general towards the Latin Mass, which is being further aided by those who act all Pharisaical, regardless of how "passive" or calumnious and detracting their tone is. Yet ... more and more it seems as if the cracks are appearing in the dam, and eventually, it's gonna burst wide open in the Church.


Personally, my own reflection on the growth of the EF via my Archdiocese

I cannot speak for much of the early years post SP, as I only came onto the scene in 2011 to the EF, but what I have seen I can comment on in a short span of 3 years. If I can speak on the pre-2011 times, it is only from what I've glanced at from web sources about my own diocese.


Our archdiocese of Toronto had a great start when SP came out. The Oratorians of St Phillip Neri began to do daily masses with SP surpassing the 1988 indult, and the two lay groups began to do Masses, first together (to an extent), then sole organization of their own Masses around the turn of this current decade. On the serving end of things, there was a good size of about a dozen or so plus a few of us serving and we did anyone's Mass. We even had the FSSP priest Fr. Venette for a time, though he left in 2010 before I appeared. That initiative wassoon replaced with a parish community I've blogged much about here on SUD, St. Lawrence  the Martyr, with its chaplain Fr. Szakaczki, under the guidance of Fr. Roy Farrell, a dream team if I ever saw one in this author's opinion.


If there is anything I have seen though, that has been a barrier to SP being more fully fruitful, as a server, in my diocese and worldwide, it is the radical traditionalism that certain members hold within he movement and their public expression. While the majority of EF attendees come to the Mass for its sake and the glory of God, a sizable minority have chosen to undertake either online and/or on the ground leadership in the TLM, and the witness has been one that sadly gives The Holy Father credence to "slam" them as it were, in his Fervorinos and Evangelium Gaudii. Their witness, as defined by professional Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong, in his e-book Mass Movements: Radical Catholic Reactionaries, the New Mass, and Ecumenism: "...is one of [a] self-important attitude: a Pharisaical, relentlessly legalistic, know-it-all, holier-than-thou mentality,and lack of faith in the authority of Holy Mother Church; also anunwillingness or inability to think along with the Mind of the Church. That lies at the root. It's "spiritual kindergarten" (location 202 - 206)


For me, I have witnessed, have been the target of, and continue to witness bullying at the online or personal hands of these leaders. Just last week in fact, Michael Coren, a popular Catholic writer and columnist for the Toronto Sun and our Catholic Register, was the target of a TBB hate-fest, because Coren has changed with regards to his views on how to treat those with same-sex attraction, after being horrified by the hate crimes being done to those with SSA in Africa. While Coren does have to further clarify his statements regarding Dr. Teresa Pierre of Parents As First Educators and the Sin of Sodom, after seeing the hate-fest that occurred online, I cannot believe that I have to be in the same ``camp`` (of which all EF and/or traditional Catholics are lumped together in) with these bullies. I sure do NOT condone what they did (Cue the hate bombs from those bloggers.) 


As a Latin Mass server, I personally could not continue to serve in some capacities in this Archdiocese, and do not frequent the Latin Mass as I should because I became enraged and sick of the harassment in those parts of the community, as well as feeling "spied upon" by the laypeople attached to these leaders in misguided loyalty. I will say to its credit, that in certain parishes and/or communities, this happens less or is not present, and hence why I associate with the groups and parishes I do.



It is also not only me who has been affected. During the dark hump that was occurring in mid-2012 to mid-2013, besides other things had the displeasure to witness two of my former serving colleagues stop EF serving altogether and serve either the Novus Ordo only, or other rites in the Church, because they too got sick of all the politics and hate. I also watched a different serving colleague sadly become lost to the Society of St. Pius X who are NOT in communion with the Church, and have NO SACRAMENTAL MINISTRY.



If you have followed my blog for some time, you can see why I write the way I do and cover the way I do because of these things. Unfortunately, the archdiocese and His Eminence, Thomas Cardinal Collins, have become aware of a portion of this activity, and needless to say they don't appreciate it.See here with ++Collins speech to youth at this theology on tap in May 2013 at 13:15. I side with them, completely.


But yet .... there is hope here in Toronto ....

However, despite of all the sub-culture politics and mudslinging, I am proud to be part of the activity I am involved with, and blessed to be under the spiritual authority of ++Collins. My Eminence clearly understands the beauty and sacredness present in the EF, so much so, he chose to rise above all this, and was present not just in a physical body sense, but as a greater prelate in a Solemn Latin Mass for the 75th ordination of Msgr. Foy. That means, for those of you new people or confused on the word, that he was in the Liturgy on the altar, in copeand mitre, said the EF prayers at points, and was seated on a pontifical throne raised on a platform, with other priests as attendants, while the main servers and clergy (celebrant, deacon, and subdeacon) did the Mass like usual. That my friends, has never happened since Vatican II in the Archdiocese of Toronto. NEVER .... UNTIL NOW! That is a BIG statement in the Church.

The diocese took the helm in the organization of the Mass and had control in it's liturgical aspects. My serving colleagues, a number who I`ve served with for St. Patrick`s Gregorian Choir Masses, proudly were the torchbearers, lighting the way for Christ.


Further, there has been no halting, stopping, or banning of the Latin Mass in neither the parishes in the West and the East of the Archdiocese of Toronto (Oratorian ones and SLTM respectfully), nor the lay organizations who help put on these Latin Masses, even with all that has happened online and in person. All EF parties have continued to, as evidenced by my reports and listing pages, holding these Latin Masses in parishes,and at certain times there have even been multiple EF Masses on specific feast days. Also, there has been the odd new joiner here and there that has ventured in for serving and the Masses.


With such an example in this Foy Mass, and the continuation of the Latin Mass parishes and the lay groups, there is clearly a future in our archdiocese for the Latin Mass. I can positively feel like there are good things to happen for the EF, including myself as a Latin Mass server.

The future? My hopes and what must be done.

So where does this leave us after today? Generally speaking in the Church, while growth is steadily increasing and more youth are coming to this form, there is a ton of work to do. We must increase the education of the laity and priests in this form, dispelling stupid notions such as "the Latin Mass is not suitable to contemporary Catholic worship." If anything, it is NEEDED to complement it, and even enhance it, where Novus Ordo liturgy is done inappropriately. 

We need to increase the number of priests and servers trained in this form, and this everyone .... means emptying out your pockets and paying up. I just bought 5 books recently for the Latin Mass and after shipping and handling it's over $120 Canadian! That's just one example, although I will admit half of the cost was because, inspired by the Foy Mass and seeing it as a reference book in my other books, I bought the Caeremoniale Epsicoporum reprint from the FSSP. This stuff is not cheap! Even cheap metal stuff is not cheap in the EF! 

Another note on training: while some dioceses are allowing EF societies or groups in to handletraining, most aren't. It will this be up to individual priests and laity (that means MCs too!) to train both clergy and servers who can't afford excursions, training packs, or can't go away from their home diocese to train. As for the music end of things, that's not my forte, but how about giving young music students who've completed musical studies degrees in classical arts and/ororgan studies, jobs in parishes or part time with Latin mass groups with stipends for their work? They gotta eat and save up for families too, you know.


I will stress however that the biggest hurdle, as a young lay server, that will deter people from exploring the Latin mass, especially clergy, is the online and in-person "policing" as it will. Extremism does not appeal to the majority of people unless they are in a desperate situation. Further all it does is fortify the stereotypes already in place about us "trads," even occasional ones like myself. This also extends to politics in the Latin mass itself. When the trad behaving badly stuff gets to people, they often want nothing to do with the EF, and they won't return. On some occasions, it might even send them further into that realm, and they might associate with groups like the SSPX who aren't in canonical communion with the Church. 

I'll admit I've been testy at times here at SUD in my zeal for the EF, for +Collins, and to fight radical traditionalism. But we all MUST start expressing positivism and mercy in our online personas, and even mix and mingle with those "Novus Ordo" types. If there is anything we are supposed to learn from Pope Francis, it's to extend a hand if mercy and Christ's Love to others to show them what we are about, all the while defending the teachings of the Church. He clearly is not for extremism, and I think we EF people should likewise follow his example. Until those people responsible for the bulk of this nonsense start expressing this mercy, and dioceses startcurbing those who don't want to tow the line after repeated attempts at peace, then I forsee this will continue to deter most priests from opening up their parish doors to the TLM, so as not to attract 'those crazies with the Latin Mass.'


In terms of my Archdiocese, I think what would be a really cool idea, would be to "complete the compass" as it were. There's already a "West end" TLM parish, and an East one. What about having a South/Downtown T.O./Central TLM site, as well as one in the North of this diocese? In fact, I am thinking of a community who doesn't have a parish built yet that could be a potential, perfect spot for a TLM (with of course, needs to add in communion rails in the planning). 

Personally, in the interim, I would also prefer if the Archdiocese also set up a training school for the lay/inferior ministers to be able to train properly for the TLMs, until there are enough groups/parishes that can supply those training needs to a set standard. However, the staff chosen to train people, must have a proper, TBB-free attitude and if need be, no affiliation with groups portraying such an attitude.


However, one good thing that will likely happen here with the TLM in Toronto, is I think after the Foy Mass, the Office of the Archdiocese of Toronto, particularly under ++Collins, is going to start holding these Masses on special occasions. One occasion, I can forsee this being possible, would be on the Feast of St. Michael. ++Collins could organize and hold a Solemn Pontifical Mass every year to mark the cathedral and Archdiocesan feast day. Another occasion would be, the completion of the renovations to the Cathedral when it is complete. Thatwould be the perfect time to "Christen" the "New" building as it were, so why not with a special Mass? Even if it is not annual, I do think strongly that ++Collins will be the Prince of the Church to do it, and after the success of the Foy Mass, clearly it can be done again. Somebody should buy him a Cappa Magna though if there isn't one hanging around the archives though. Really.

My Final Thoughts.


Overall, not just in my diocese, but also generally speaking, yes, we might still have large hurdles to overcome in terms of spreading the TLM, but I do have hope and feel, even in the Pope Francis pontificate, the Church IS going to see a growth of the TLM. Hopefully, Francis will discover it ISN'T a fad among the youth, but a place where they are getting fed. As both the disgruntled elders who witnessed the liturgical carnage and became sowed with hate, and the free-spirit hippie generation that all but banned the TLM are dying, the TLM is more and more becoming the grounds for a new youthful generation without those hatreds and screeds to take over. The haters and hopefully, the bloggers, too, will become a less sizable minority, and the majority will become positive leaders, whether they are online, servers, choir members, etc. Also the newer members taking positions of power in the politics of the Church, are becoming more and more like ++Collins-es, and less and less like Buginis. These newer members are more neutral to positively conservative and orthodox in their Catholic faith, and aren't putting up the same fight against the TLM as their political forefathers.


In addition, there a special X factor we haven't taken account of .... the 4th/MIllenial generation. What I've been seeing is that the Church is starting to invest in youth ministry and deeper worship for young people. Most Trads of course balk and spit on things like the Stubenville Conferences and praise and worship, but as a Glad Trad, what I see, is that first step towards making them open to the TLM. These young people are getting what many of us, even my generation, never got: investment in their Faith with a specific center to Eucharistic devotion, and encouragement with mercy and Love. These groups and experiences are the baby steps or first building blocks where they will then want more, and be ready to want that experience the TLM will give them. I think that what we will see is in the next several years, this "1st/2nd wave" of youth ministry kids will gradually, though maybe not in huge numbers, start wanting to explore their Faith deeper as adults, and they will be the next, newest crop of youth to come to the TLM.... if we do not go all TBB on em that is.


Final thoughts: Yes there is still that darkness overhead, but it is dissipating, Virginia. Keep fervent in your prayers to the Lord, and continue to be evangelical and spread the Gospel, all the while supporting (both financially and personally) the Latin Mass. The light is gonna shine baby!

HAPPY 7 YEAR ANNIVERSARY TO SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM!!! THANK YOU POPE EMERITUS BENEDICT XVI!!!

Pax, Julian Barkin.

Highlight: Dave Armstrong Defends Benedict XVI and his Reform of the Reform Spledidly from TBBs and Naysayers

Hello Everyone.

So, the next, fad for the Trads Behaving Badly (TBBs), and additionally from some new allies, the "naysayers" (who are not necessarily TBBs, more just giving more ammunition to validate the TBBs in their minds), is to say "The Reform of the Reform" touted by Pope Benedict XVI, is DEAD.

Well, Dave Armstrong, one of the best modern Catholic Apologists on the Internet, who has done frequent work with North America's Catholic Answers in past, has decided to critically examine the TBBs/naysayers' latest attack from the right, and to speak with the mind of the Church and defend it.

Please see these postings to dispel the latest shenanigans of the TBB side:

Part One & Part Two.

Pax, Julian.

Rorate Caeli Attacks their "Hero", Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI? More Context is Needed ....

Hello Everyone

I just caught something weird right now in my blogger feed, from Rorate Caeli. The title of the article is "She wanted to convert. But she listened to Cardinal Ratzinger and died a Lutheran." (with hyperlink attached).

The summary I can draw out of this, is that this woman named Sigrid Spath, was a translator for a number of Pope Benedict XVI`s documents from Italian into the language of his heritage, German, while he was the prefect for the CDF in Rome. She was told to remain a protestant to be of better service to the Church.

WHAT????? Something smells like rotten fish here, because Rorate Caeli is supposed to be "Trad" as it were, and Benedict XVI is so revered because of Summorum Pontificum and Ecclesiae Unitatem in Trad culture. Why would Rorate post this if Benedict XVI is supposed to be one of the heroes of Traditional Catholicism for his Latin Mass documents?

On the one hand, I will re-quote another Blogger's analysis of Rorate Caeli, "Spike is Best" which I put in my last couple of posts, which summarizes well their stance on Church issues and their "authority" in the Church:
"And just a friendly neighbourhood reminder: Rorate Caeli is the schismatic-but-without-the-guts-of-declaring-it blog that on the very heels - within minutes in fact - of the public declaration of the election of Pope Francis posted "The Horror" as their reaction, and did not offer any sort of apology stating their filial obedience to the Holy Pontiff. Thus, everything they post, write, disseminate, can be dismissed out of hand without second thought whatsoever, in the full comfortable knowledge that the neo-orthodoxy which they present is entirely floated."

On the other hand, this doesn't make sense! Why would a blog that necessitates adherence to these traditional heroes as it were, attack its own? There MUST be something more to this than a senseless attack on Benedict XVI by his own "party" as it were (traditional Catholics). Something has to clarify what this is all about!

So I must ask the question, what's going on here? Is there more to this story about this translator NOT becoming a Catholic at the advice of our living Pope Emeritus??? If anyone has anything SENSIBLE and not laced with TBB vitriol to add, please do share. Just be advised there are certain people whose comments will NOT be published here, even if they are valid. So don't try it, and follow my blog rules (see September 2012).

Pax, Julian.

Objects and Evil Part 2: A Commentary on the Issue of Using Things and Social Media, or Why I Choose Not To Abhor Facebook

Hello Everyone.

In this second part, I am going to be telling you why I choose to still use Facebook, and perhaps give you more reasoning to consider why just pulling apart from it is NOT the best solution in reaction to its filth.

1) Trads Behaving Badly Behaviour: The SSPX and the Banishment of the TV from the Home
First reason why I will not be signing off Facebook and continue to use it: This kind of radical reaction to cease such an item is one that is similar, or exactly like those of the radical traditionalists, giving a negative impression of those of Traditional Catholicism.

Alright, so for those of you tuning in, the SSPX is a "fraternal organization" of traditionalists who are around the world, with seminaries and chapels/missions in a number of countries. They were formed by a Vatican II Council Father, Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre, in retaliation to the egregious liturgical and spiritual abuses made "in the name of Vatican II/Spirit of Vatican II" that were happening post-council. However, he consecrated four bishops without permission of the Holy See in 1988 (of which the Holy See under the Pope is supposed to consecrate the bishops), and put the society in a weird "no man's land". It's priests are valid but illicit in their ordinations, and while they can confect the sacrament of the Eucharist and can administer a valid baptism (under the Trinitarian formula,) and do everything according to the liturgy and the books of 1962, they are not in communion canonically with the Catholic Church. Further more, the laity attending their "Masses", can be brought into schism with the Church. You should not also consume their Eucharist, because it would be supporting schism with the Church. While they do give "lip service" to the Pope by not committing the heresy of sedevacantism (Yes, you are a valid pope, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis), they call the Novus Ordo "Evil" thus denying it's sacramental validity and licitness, and are pretty much anti-"Novus Ordo" Church. Most importantly, They have no canonical/sacramental ministry within the Church, as restated by Benedict XVI when he released the excommunications of the 4 bishops illegally consecrated by Lefebvre.

Okay, do you get the picture? Basically their way of "living" is all pre-Vatican II, from their schools to their liturgy, to what they believe, etc. They may profess to all doctrine of the Church and the Magisterium, but their anti-"Novus Ordo" Church attitude (which also includes accusing the Pope of heresy in being a modernist in their 25th anniversary statement), as well as actions they have, as a society committed over the years (e.g. having an anti-Semitic bishop in the expelled Williamson, making an anti-Semitic statement last Xmas after a visit held in MY diocese and Illegally and INVALIDLY administering confirmations ...) is totally against our Holy Mother Church, and will only lead one off the narrow path. It is also important to say a number of traditionalists do support them, despite staying in the "Novus Ordo" church through licit Masses and means due to their status and the individual NOT wanting to be eternally damned by schism, in a Canon Law sense.

Summary picture: They give all Traditional Catholics a bad impression as being rigid, shaming people. WE ARE NOT ALL LIKE THAT!!!

Back to the Facebook issue. While I have not seen anything with regard to specifically Facebook from the SSPX (and in fact, their adherents are on Facebook and use it to push the SSPX propaganda/TBB views), there is a similar vein in their arguments with regards to the television. It was only recently with regards to a movie that puts their founder in a positive light that the SSPX relaxed their views on television and movies. However, at their core, and for the past 25 years, they held rigorist views on the matter. Let's look at their "literature", shall we?

Angelus: Online and Paper publication/Magazine
From an interview with then SSPX bishop Williamson:

"So then would you say that the Internet is a mix of both good and bad, while the television is almost all bad or at least useless?
Even on TV, there can still be some good things. Satan is not stupid. He's going to bait the hook with a nice, juicy worm. Families, however, should undoubtedly keep the television set outside of the home. Period. Especially if there are young children. The television set must go. "

From another Angelus Article:
"Objection: “I always think that Archbishop Lefebvre comes across great on TV!"    Response: “if you can't be present at the Bishop's Mass, then it is God's will.  But if you want to be there, then you will get your priorities straight and make some room in your activities so as to be able to go and see him.  TV is not a channel of God's grace.  It stultifies the sacred and belittles good, while enhancing evil.  You cannot televise Christ's Mystical Body.”

However, despite the SSPX's change in its stance on video this year (which I think, as a measure to try and shake off the "Bad press" they receive and look less oppressive to outsiders, in a bid for their adherency), I restate that it is still TBB in behaviour at its core,  and the criticism of its own members, or other TBBs of the SSPX, still demonstrate the TBB viewpoint with regard to the TV/Internet. Here's an example of one on line, showing that radical response (Chuck out the TV/Internet) as he/she is criticising the notoriously well known SSPX school, St. May's Kansas, for the junior girls promoting a showing of "For Greater Glory" about the 1920's Cristeros war in Mexico:

"One of our readers from St. Marys, KS just told us that the priests there are having their own junior high school girl class promote, as a fundraiser, the recent movie "For Greater Glory" to the adults and children of that parish.  She forwarded us their January 20th, 2012 parish bulletin on the right (yellow emphasis is ours). Besides the problem of tv/movie watching in general, the movie "For the Greater Glory" has problems.   First, it includes a scene with women in their underwear.  It is true, the underwear is 1920's style (and therefore mild compared to modern style); yet our innocent children have (hopefully) never seen any such thing, and therefore watching such a scene would be harmful to their innocence.  Second, the movie leaves the viewer ignorant as to the real nature of the Mexican conflict: Catholicism vs. Masonry.  The movie never mentions or even implies Masonry." http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/the-truth/problems-in-the-sspx/slow-subtle-poison-from-the-sspx/all-poison-newest-first/232-1-15-2013-sspx-weakens-its-stand-against-television-and-movies

While perhaps For Greater Glory should not be seen by younger children, I will say that the comment clearly upholds the TBB standard of `The TV/Internet is wholly evil" as well as NOT explaining the context of the scene (The women aiding the soldiers/husbands/men, by stashing ammunition in the folds of their underwear, in order to give it to the resistance fighters because government surveillance would have made vehicle transportation and housing ammunition highly unsuccessful). Not to mention a nice side note of obsession with Masonry to boot. Might I also add the site that I got this quote from is "True Trad.com - No compromise with Modernist Rome?" With a title like that, can I seriously  as a practicing Roman Catholic, spiritually and logically, give credence to someone like that?

Summary: The reaction of chucking out the TV/Computer/Internet entirely is associated with TBB behaviour, and makes a mockery of Traditional Catholics. I will therefore not subscribe to such a radical reaction.

2) Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis: Social Media and Evangelization.
The second reason I will not subscribe to such a measure to ditch Facebook (and other programs like YouTube and Twitter) and call it a plague of evil: Our Holy Father, Francis, is encouraging us to go out and Evangelize others and even uses social media himself to proclaim the Gospel and preach. Also, our Holy Father Emeritus, Benedict XVI, focused on the Internet as a new Frontier for Evangelization in his recent papacy.

We can start with our Holy Father Emeritus, Benedict XVI, in his recent speech May 17, 2013. This speech was prepared ahead of time, before the conclave this spring, when Francis was elected Supreme Pontiff, and hence is attributed to Benedict XVI.

Benedict XVI opens his speech on the 47th World Communications Day with this quote:
``Dear Brothers and Sisters,

As the 2013 World Communications Day draws near, I would like to offer you some reflections on an increasingly important reality regarding the way in which people today communicate among themselves. I wish to consider the development of digital social networks which are helping to create a new “agora”, an open public square in which people share ideas, information and opinions, and in which new relationships and forms of community can come into being. ``

I couldn`t have said it better myself. And my very blog means I am guilty as charged, Your Holiness Emeritus. Continuing on:

 

``.... These spaces, when engaged in a wise and balanced way, help to foster forms of dialogue and debate which, if conducted respectfully and with concern for privacy, responsibility and truthfulness, can reinforce the bonds of unity between individuals and effectively promote the harmony of the human family. The exchange of information can become true communication, links ripen into friendships, and connections facilitate communion. If the networks are called to realize this great potential, the people involved in them must make an effort to be authentic since, in these spaces, it is not only ideas and information that are shared, but ultimately our very selves ....``

 

Whoa! I think Benedict XVI just parroted my thoughts and what I said in the first post. See, even he, implies, that an object such as the Internet can be a good that can be used in one of two ways: for good, or evil. Further, such a tool, especially for the youth, is where relationships are being formed, maintained, etc. online. But most importantly in what I underlined, we are sharing our VERY SELVES. I reflect that we are not just sharing our physical selves, but also our spiritual selves, and shaping our ``selves`` while on there. What self are we sharing, one that respects our self-dignity and reflection as a Creation of God, or a false self, an incorrect self, one which affects other selves? Moving on ....

 

``.... The development of social networks calls for commitment: people are engaged in building relationships and making friends, in looking for answers to their questions and being entertained, but also in finding intellectual stimulation and sharing knowledge and know-how. The networks are increasingly becoming part of the very fabric of society, inasmuch as they bring people together on the basis of these fundamental needs. Social networks are thus nourished by aspirations rooted in the human heart .... ``

 

So even Benedict XVI, the Traditionalist favourite of our post-Vatican II popes, realizes that the internet and these social works (and their associated programs, e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram), are a daily means of living, especially in the modern, technologically driven world. To tune yourself out, to me, is willful ignorance of the reality which our Holy Father Emeritus Benedict XVI is calling much attention to.

 

And now, a big one:

".... The challenge facing social networks is how to be truly inclusive: thus they will benefit from the full participation of believers who desire to share the message of Jesus and the values of human dignity which his teaching promotes. Believers are increasingly aware that, unless the Good News is made known also in the digital world, it may be absent in the experience of many people for whom this existential space is important. The digital environment is not a parallel or purely virtual world, but is part of the daily experience of many people, especially the young. Social networks are the result of human interaction, but for their part they also reshape the dynamics of communication which builds relationships: a considered understanding of this environment is therefore the prerequisite for a significant presence there .... "

 

Finally, what is Benedict XVI telling us Catholics to do with the Internet? He certainly isn't saying to dispel it as a cesspool of evil, rather:

 

".... In social networks, believers show their authenticity by sharing the profound source of their hope and joy: faith in the merciful and loving God revealed in Christ Jesus. This sharing consists not only in the explicit expression of their faith, but also in their witness, in the way in which they communicate “choices, preferences and judgements that are fully consistent with the Gospel, even when it is not spoken of specifically” (Message for the 2011 World Communications Day). A particularly significant way of offering such witness will be through a willingness to give oneself to others by patiently and respectfully engaging their questions and their doubts as they advance in their search for the truth and the meaning of human existence. The growing dialogue in social networks about faith and belief confirms the importance and relevance of religion in public debate and in the life of society ...."

 

This speaks for itself. Now what about the other guy? That 'modernist' Pope who just can't get a good day without some TBB site smearing him, Francis? Well, he himself is encouraging others to be concerned with applying the Gospel to other areas of society, including social Media. In his first ever speech which was given in FULL English, at the First Phillipine Conference of the New Evangelization, he said this:

 

"... Don’t get tired of bringing the mercy of the Father to the poor, the sick, the abandoned, the young people and families. Let Jesus be known in the world of politics, business, arts, science, technology and social media. Let the Holy Spirit renew the creation and bring forth justice and peace in the Philippines and in the great continent of Asia that is close to my heart ...." (Oct 18, 2013)

 

POPE FRANCIS IS TELLING US TO GET ON THE BANDWAGON AND EVANGELISE AND SHOW THE WORLD CHRIST VIA SOCIAL MEDIA!!!!!

 

Further, look at all the social media the Pope/Vatican has engaged in to reach our "wired" generation:

News Media site - www.news.va/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Pontifex for the English, and for the Latin, https://twitter.com/Pontifex_ln !!!

Facebook: N/A? There are multiple groups and pages, though which one is "official" is uncertain.

Websites: (1) Vatican's official page: www.vatican.va/  (2) Pontifical Council of Social Communications for Youth - http://www.pope2you.net/

 

Now, what did he tell other young people to do? Make a mess/Noise/Lio's! It comes from this speech he gave at WYD RIO:

".... Let me tell you what I hope will be the outcome of World Youth Day: I hope there will be noise. Here there will be noise, I’m quite sure. Here in Rio there will be plenty of noise, no doubt about that. But I want you to make yourselves heard in your dioceses, I want the noise to go out, I want the Church to go out onto the streets, I want us to resist everything worldly, everything static, everything comfortable, everything to do with clericalism, everything that might make us closed in on ourselves. The parishes, the schools, the institutions are made for going out ... if they don’t, they become an NGO, and the Church cannot be an NGO. May the bishops and priests forgive me if some of you create a bit of confusion afterwards. That’s my advice. Thanks for whatever you can do ...."

 

Now, some of you might say, "Uh, Francis told you to resist the TV in resisting things closed in upon yourself." Yes he wants us to resist worldly things, but does he say to ban them from our homes and societies if they are neutral goods or instruments? NO! He is telling us to resist worldly temptations, but to PREACH THE GOSPEL and make ourselves heard! In today's world, the equivalent of the megaphone is: The Internet and mobile, Internet capable phones!!!

 

Personal Evangelization: Summing it up with my personal example: Youth Ministry

My third reason, which is personal, for not ditching the Facebook: By not using Facebook, we lose a critical means to evangelize to others, and more importantly, to help our fellow youth live a Life in Christ, when the secular world (also on the Internet) is with them. This includes it as originally intended: A means to connect and to communicate with another living being.  

 

How can I put this succinctly? Well I'll use a personal example in my life. I am now involved in youth ministry, in an active capacity. I currently at one of my parishes are part of a teen youth ministry, whereby our main means of communication with the youth, outside of Mass IF they come to church, or in school if you are a priest/teacher/volunteer/student teacher, is the internet, via a Facebook Group (as well as our online profiles for direct messages).

 

In fact, as a regular old lay guy, employed in a hospital, I am reduced in being able to reach out to the youth because I am not in a position to be in a school, without good reason (e.g. parent, sibling, attending a play open to the community). You can't just show up at a school by any means to say hello. Between enforcement of visitor policies, cameras, the sexual scandals that have rocked the church, an overall increase in legal enforcement against crimes committed by children, etc. basically, someone like me can't really do what we used to do to maintain relationships with young people. Schools, are also funny business, and might not want "outside interests" coming into "their territory" to promote things, unless it fits with their ideals, or isn't truly 100% Catholic/will get the Ministry of Education on their backs. Worse, the young people themselves are "wired" constantly to mobile phones that text and are hooked to internet and download with great speeds that weren't present in a little device even a few years ago, not to mention video games for both sexes (yes, there are girl gamers out there, and they all aren't stereotypical "geeks." They are normal teenagers, and it's possible they are doing it with their male and female friends, and even are playing games typically oriented towards males). So they are "plugged in" a lot, and between their homework and such, it's not like the past where everyone's out and about in the neighbourhood.

 

Therefore, Facebook serves as a means of communication and a lifeline to these young people, and a way to, like our Holy Fathers have said, be a part of the lives of youth in our world, and to evangelize and preach the Gospel.

 

For my ministry, we have a main Facebook page moderated by the Head Youth Minister of the parish. While I am a member of the page, I can post content, but everything is observed by the head minister and approved or not. Also, we both have online profiles specifically for this ministry, with myself taking the additional step of a second profile that is ONLY for the youth, and will only have content appropriate for youth ministry. I even tell them, "I won't accept friend requests under my first profile." They MUST friend the youth ministry profile. Not that I don't want them to see the real me and know me, but I did that because: other youth ministers in the parish were doing it; I saw it as a safeguard for the youth; it keeps everything in one spot instead of going between two profiles (for reference); it provides a written, online record of messages, and so there is no question as to what our communication is for.  

 

But more importantly, why I keep Facebook, is that the 2nd profile serves as a means to spread the Gospel of Christ, AND as a lifeline for them as a Brother of Christ. Say an emergency happens whereby a young person in my charge doesn't feel they can talk to a priest, a teacher, their parents, etc. and they need someone to talk to. Let's use the extreme example of a whole bunch of garbage happens in their life, and they want to commit suicide. They don't want to tell their parents what's happening out of guilt or chastisement, and well Father is not around or is going bring fire and brimstone on them with their problems (which may or may not be their fault). It's 7pm and school isn't open, so no teachers. They don't know what a crisis center is or Kids Help Phone. They are approaching a bridge/overpass where they can jump off. They are depressed and they are not thinking straight, coupled with their biology (specifically, their pre-adolescent brains that need to be further matured). Say I choose to buck Facebook cause it's evil, regardless of my ministry. Thinking there is no hope left and no one to talk to, one of my charges kill themselves. We now have another Amanda Todd, another teen suicide, another soul whose salvation we don't know where they will be ... and a whole lot of people left behind on Earth, wishing they had heard his/her cries for help or given them a means to do so. AND THAT INCLUDES ME. I will be forever wondering and blaming myself for not helping them. I could have been there!

 

Now same scenario, but they have me on Facebook with messaging capability. At the last second, they contact me because of all this and online chat happens. It's easy for them to whip off a message on their phones, and chat online (with an attitude of ``privacy`` a.k.a. "mom and dad aren't here so I can be comfortable to speak freely"). I drop what I'm doing, and despite the time spent, I am able to help the young person realize they are valuable, they are loved by Christ, and all of us here in their lives, and help them with the slew of stuff that is causing them to consider ending their life. THEY DESERVE THAT MESSAGE. They might even request police/ambulance, even myself to get them wherever they ended up. LIFE SAVED. SOUL SAVED. And this could open them in future to the Gospel of the Lord .... just from one message. ONE MESSAGE AT A NEEDED TIME. CHRIST WAS THERE FOR THEM. I WAS THERE FOR THEM.

 

Kay maybe my scenario is extreme, and perhaps in future it will be just a minor problem, or just listening to their lives that will need a message to me, but that`s part of youth ministry, and part of my role as a Catholic and my witness to my Lord`s Gospel. Yes it might not be the heavy stuff, but Facebook is one of those means to minister to the youth, those very youth that are at the heart and forefront of the Church`s concerns. And should that emergency happen .... I may be the last hand outstretched of Christ's to that young person, the one that saves them from forever turning away from Him. May it never come to that though.

 

BIG OLD SUMMARY!

 

So let me repeat my three central points why ditching Facebook, all social media, is not a choice I will make, nor I`d encourage:

1) This kind of radical reaction to cease such an item is one that is similar, or exactly like those of the radical traditionalists, giving a negative impression of those of Traditional Catholicism, and even could be extended to Catholics in general.

 

2)  Our Holy Father, Francis, is encouraging us to go out and Evangelize others and even uses social media himself to proclaim the Gospel and preach. Also, our Holy Father Emeritus, Benedict XVI, focused on the Internet as a new Frontier for Evangelization in his recent papacy.

 

3) By not using Facebook, we lose a critical means to evangelize to others, and more importantly, to help our fellow youth live a Life in Christ, when the secular world (also on the Internet) is with them. This includes it as originally intended: A means to connect and to communicate with another living being.  

 

Now, by no means am I validating Facebook as inherently good. It`s a tool that can be used for good, or for evil. It would be better if Zuckerberg and company, did not lace it with the heavy financial involvement it does now in its advertisments and stocks. It would be better if heavier monitoring of the tool for malicious/inflammatory statements against Catholics and immoral acts happened, but we are not Zuckerberg and company.

 

Further, I have not denied that each and every one of us using the tool, must conduct ourselves accordingly online. That includes US. Yes, us Catholic youth, and what we reveal, even to only our friends and family, in our messages and pictures.

 

However, to deny total usage of the tool altogether, will severely cut and restrict your means of evangelization of the Catholic faith to the youth and secular friends (Unless of course, you don't care to evangelize, and like to restrict your interactions to your circle of 100 people you relate to Mon-Sunday.). I can guarantee that just limiting that evangelization to our already youth-deprived Catholic parishes, and the schools, or the few young people in your families, will result in a miserable failure, and a Church closed in on itself.

 

Latin Mass Side note: I will also say, that this will have a blowback on your ability to evangelize and help others Come to Christ, especially if you are involved in the Latin Mass like me. Summorum Pontificum was a big help, but in total, we conservatives, and especially us Latin Massers, have been able to successfully make the Catholic public aware of the Latin Mass, as we have been using online social media, including Facebook and YouTube. That also includes getting people to come out to the Masses when they are held, instead of restricting it to the "already converted" or your Latin Mass/Traditional friends. Considering one Latin Mass can make an impact, or a few over a string of occasions, why are you NOT using Facebook to do that? In addition, the "liberals" did not pick up early on, as to another form of media to spread their "lukewarm Jesus" ways, so we got the upper hand early, and now look at what's happening? A recovery in the church of Tradition and "t"raditions. Plus don't you want traffic to your Catholic/Traditional blogs? Your Facebook page connected to your blog directs traffic to the blogs.

 

So while it's up to everyone of us to spiritually discern if Facebook is helping or hurting our spiritual progress and our ability to do the Work of the Lord, taking a violent reaction of rejection, does not seem reasonable. There is too much at stake with the younger generations today, to merit losing a vital tool to the New Evangelization.

 

And that's my take on this issue.

 

Pax Tibi Christi, Julian Barkin,

Young person making messes on Facebook and the Internet in his ministries, and with Servimus Unum Deum.