Fr. Z's Blog

I bring to your attention two pieces worthy of your precious time.

First, at Crisis there is an essay by Fr. John Perricone

“Why Every Catholic Is a Traditional Catholic (Or Should Be)”

Perricone argues that the contemporary Catholic Church faces a crisis of language, culture, and doctrine because a radical ideological project has systematically corrupted the meaning of fundamental terms, most dangerously, “Tradition.”

Drawing on George Orwell’s critique of political language, he asserts that when words are manipulated away from their historical meanings, human cognition and communal coherence unravel, opening the door to cultural and ecclesial chaos. This manipulation is going on in the Church. The term “Tradition”, once understood as the unbroken transmission of the Apostolic faith and practice, has been redefined by modern theologians and ecclesiastical actors in ways that detach it from the faith’s perennial content and forms. Perricone contends that the assault on “Tradition” is both intellectual and symbolic, since the Church’s liturgical, artistic, linguistic, and devotional expressions historically embody and transmit Tradition’s truths. To undermine these symbols (especially sacred liturgical worship) is to undermine Tradition itself. He maintains that true Catholic fidelity consists in embracing the sacred deposit of faith and the practices that have conveyed it throughout the ages, holding fast to the doctrines, liturgy, and devotions that have shaped Catholic life and identity. In this sense, Perricone insists, every Catholic who genuinely adheres to the infallible teachings and ancient forms of the faith is, by definition, a Traditional Catholic, because to be otherwise is to abandon authentic Catholic Tradition and, ultimately, to cease being truly Catholic.

This describes well why I sometimes use catholic for, for example, some infamous Jesuits and certain writers at the Fishwrap, et alibi.

Next there is a piece at Imprimis/Hillsdale

“Recovering the Lost Art of Diplomacy”

The writer, A. Wess Mitchell, argues that diplomacy is a central instrument of strategic statecraft, essential for great powers to survive and gain advantage amid competition. True diplomacy is defined not by formalities or idealistic international governance but by concrete outcomes, primarily constraining the power of adversaries and reducing threats that cannot be resolved by force alone. After the Cold War, the United States allowed traditional diplomacy to atrophy, favoring military technology, economic sanctions, and global-institution idealism; this reflected erroneous assumptions on both the left (that institutions can transcend conflict) and the right (that military preponderance alone secures security). The contemporary international environment, marked by renewed great-power competition over territory, influence, and resources, demands a revival of classical diplomacy’s core function: matching national means to ends through negotiation, coalition building, and balance of power. Effective diplomacy, Mitchell contends, increases strategic flexibility, limits hostile accumulation of power, and helps avoid wars beyond a nation’s capacity. Rediscovery of these skills, he insists, is vital to national strategy in an era of renewed geopolitical rivalry.

Great military history references, too!

It would be interesting to use the article as a lens to view the present conflict between the SSPX and the Holy See, seemingly a clash between an inflexible reading of the Deposit of Faith (with little desire to consider positively things written after 1962) versus rigid canonical positivism along with ecclesiastical amnesia (the devaluation of anything that happened before 1963).

Using Mitchell’s piece as a lens, the present standoff between the SSPX and the Holy See is a failure of ecclesial diplomacy on both sides. Diplomacy, Mitchell argues, succeeds when adversaries constrain each other’s worst impulses and negotiate outcomes that avoid destructive rupture. It fails when principles are elevated above the art of sustainable coexistence.

The SSPX has publicly reaffirmed its intention to proceed with unauthorized episcopal consecrations on 1 July 2026 despite Vatican warnings that such acts would constitute a decisive rupture of ecclesial communion and incur automatic excommunication under canon law. This is where rigid canonical positivism comes in.  The Holy could choose not to impose censures, which would be the best way forward.  But that’s unlikely with this crew in Rome.  From the Society’s perspective, the consecrations are framed as necessary to ensure continuation of traditional ministry in what it deems a post-Conciliar crisis of doctrine and liturgical identity. Its superior general rejected Vatican proposals for renewed doctrinal dialogue that made suspension of the consecrations a condition of talks.

I find that approach to be too narrow.

Talking with the Holy See costs nothing and could, in fact, gain what they want.  Not guaranteed, of course.  But nothing ventured nothing gained.  The Holy See, after all, proposed a structured theological dialogue aimed at identifying minimum conditions for full regularization.   I won’t say “full communion” because that’s a nonsensical term.   Finding common ground in the minimum conditions is what has been going on in the Church for two millennia of Councils called to discuss matters of grave importance.

There is a kind of zero-sum defense on one side and, on the other, institutional inflexibility with a strong dash of ecclesiastical amnesia if not downright negationism.