There is a new tornado swirling about on Catholic social media among members of the Resist-the-Pope movement, namely, Diane Montagna’s recent Substack:
EXCLUSIVE: Official Vatican Report Exposes Major Cracks in Foundation of Traditionis Custodes
Evidently, Montagna, a seasoned Vatican journalist with a solid reputation for reliable reporting, has obtained details regarding “the [2020] questionnaire [sent] to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum,” which was cited by Francis in Traditionis Custodes as a factor in his decision to crackdown on the Traditional Roman Rite.
Specifically, Montagna revealed that she has “obtained the Vatican’s overall assessment of the consultation of bishops that was said to have ‘prompted’ Pope Francis” to act.
According to certain vocal proponents of the Resist-the-Pope movement, the takeaway from this “overall assessment,” which we will examine momentarily, is that Bergoglio’s alleged justification for abrogating Summorum Pontificum was unsupported – in fact, contradicted – by a majority of the bishops’ actual responses.
A number of commentators on social media are openly stating that the “overall assessment” reveals Bergoglio as a baldfaced liar.
“This proves it. Traditionis Custodes was based on a flagrant lie,” wrote former Catholic Herald Editor, Damian Thompson.
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, one of the more prominent leaders of said movement, called Montagna’s report a “BOMBSHELL” [with all caps used in his original social media posts on both X and Facebook] as he shared articles making the same sorts of accusations.
Others were a little more diplomatic, suggesting that Bergoglio’s biases caused him to focus only on that which might justify his negative view of the Traditional Latin Mass, a fair observation.
Keep the power of confirmation bias in mind as we proceed, that is, the tendency many of us sometimes have to see and to highlight what confirms that which we already believe to be true, as opposed to evaluating objective reality for what it plainly reveals either way.
As regular readers are aware, I have referred to Bergoglio on a number of occasions as the Holy Fibber. (Offended? Not sorry, I think it’s hilarious.) The idea that he lied, as such, doesn’t offend me in the least. In this case, however, it seems to me that the pope resisters are once again demonstrating their own detachment from reality.
At this, I would invite you to read Diane Montagna’s lengthy article for yourself. Here, I will highlight mainly those parts that aren’t getting nearly as much attention as I believe they should.
Let’s begin by discussing the document that Montagna has in hand, starting with a review of its origins as she describes it.
In the Spring of 2020, the CDF created a questionnaire on Summorum Pontificum for worldwide distribution to diocesan bishops. As reported by Montagna last year, “Approximately thirty percent of the world’s bishops responded to the questionnaire.”
Those responses were collected by the CDF until January 2021, at which point they were processed, analyzed, and incorporated into a 224-page final report.
Montagna plainly states that she has not seen that report, however, her understanding from reliable sources is that it exists in two parts: One, a detailed representation of the responses with data, pie charts, and graphs, and two, a far briefer summary that she also refers to as the “overall assessment.”
This summary is what she now has in hand. Montagna writes:
The overall assessment is precisely the part of the report that synthesizes and interprets the survey results, offering an evaluative conclusion drawn from the evidence.
It is important to note that the task of creating this summary (as well as the more detailed portion of the report) fell to just one section of the CDF in particular.
The task of preparing the official report was entrusted to the Fourth Section of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Until TC, this entity, formerly known as the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, was responsible for supervising the observance and application of the provisions established in Summorum Pontificum.
At this, let’s consider once again the power of confirmation bias.
Note very well that the leaked overall assessment is best understood (as Montagna describes it above) as a synthesis, an interpretation, and an evaluation of the information collected via the questionnaire, all of which led the Ecclesia Dei Commission to draw certain conclusions.
In other words, it is not a data set. It is, at least in part, a subjective analysis of the survey results and the Commission’s opinion as to their meaning.
As Montagna points out, the Ecclesia Dei Commission is charged (or was at that time, in any event) with supervising the observance and application of Summorum Pontificum. This mission is central to the Commission’s very existence.
This being so, for Ecclesia Dei to generate an overly negative analysis of the questionnaire’s findings vis-à-vis Summorum Pontificum would be tantamount to institutional suicide.
Now, I’m not suggesting that the Ecclesia Dei summary was deliberately slanted accordingly. I am, however, saying that the Commission had a vested interest in presenting a favorable reading – that is, favorable with respect to Summorum Pontificum – of the questionnaire’s results. This is just a fact.
Surely, the members of the Ecclesia Dei Commission understood that a negative overall assessment of the bishop’s views on Summorum Pontificum would threaten, at the very least, to greatly reduce their relevance.
As it turned out, even without a thoroughly negative summary, this is exactly what happened. Article 7 of Traditionis Custodes specifically grants competence in the matter to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.
The question we will address here concerns whether or not Montagna’s BOMBSHELL really does expose major cracks in the foundation for Traditionis Custodes.
Let’s now look at some of the information provided by Diane Montagna concerning the overall assessment. She reports:
The overall assessment opens by noting that Summorum Pontificum played “a significant, albeit relatively modest, role in the life of the Church.” By 2021, “it had spread to around 20% of the Latin dioceses worldwide, and its implementation was “more serene and peaceful, though not everywhere.”
Resist-the-Pope activists are focusing almost exclusively on the phrase “serene and peaceful.”
What they’re overlooking, however, is that Summorum Pontificum had “spread” its way into just 1 in 5 Novus Ordo dioceses over the course of fourteen years. Moreover, the survey results indicate that in some of these places, its effects are not serene and not peaceful.
Ecclesia Dei, perhaps not surprisingly, chose not to provide (at least as far as Montagna’s report indicates) what percentage of bishops reported that Summorum is a source of unrest in their diocese.
What we do know for a fact based on the questionnaire results is that Summorum hasn’t been implemented in 8 out of 10 Novus Ordo dioceses, and in the ones where has been implemented, it is a source of unrest in at least some of them.
Montagna writes:
[The overall assessment] reveals that “the majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire stated that making legislative changes to Summorum Pontificum would cause more harm than good.”
That sounds pretty damning, no?
But wait, there’s another quote taken from the assessment that seems to provide some crucial context:
The majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire, and who have generously and intelligently implemented Summorum Pontificum, ultimately express satisfaction with it.
It seems rather obvious that “the majority of bishops” mentioned in the first citation actually refers to the majority of bishops who generously and intelligently implemented Summorum Pontificum, and not the majority of all respondents, much less does it refer to a majority of the global episcopate as a whole.
Bear in mind, however, that there is no indication that feedback concerning Summorum Pontificum came exclusively from dioceses where the Latin Mass is offered. One can well imagine that the bishops of certain neighboring dioceses may not be thrilled about the faithful under their charge taking their families (and their money!) to another diocese.
Also, recall that some 70% of the bishops didn’t bother to respond at all!
What does their non-response indicate?
It suggests that the Novus Ordo and the Almighty Council that spawned it have fully saturated the life of those dioceses, which is the brass ring at which every claimant to the Chair of Peter has been grasping for over fifty years, and none more strenuously than Jorge Bergoglio.
One might also have noticed what looks like evidence of Ecclesia Dei’s bias as they imply that every bishop would be satisfied with the results of Summorum Pontificum if only they had implemented it “generously and intelligently.”
To be clear, I’m not saying that they’re wrong on this note, only that they seem to have been at pains to paint the most positive picture possible. As you will see if you read the full article, this isn’t the only statement that reveals a certain amount of spin on the Commission’s part.
Montagna draws her own conclusions, ones that are shared by the aforementioned Resist-the-Pope crowd:
The overall assessment directly contradicts, therefore, the stated rationale for imposing Traditionis Custodes and raises serious questions about its credibility.
There are two things being alleged here, one, that the assessment contradicts Bergoglio’s rationale, and secondly, that Traditionis Custodes therefore lacks credibility.
Beginning with the latter, it must be said that the degree to which anyone finds, or does not find, the document credible is both purely subjective and entirely irrelevant.
Regardless of what the faithful may think either way, if, in fact, Jorge Bergoglio was the Holy Roman Pontiff and Vicar of Christ (as everyone caught up in the Resist-the-Pope movement insists), then Traditionis Custodes was, and remains, authoritative.
Now, let us ask: Does the overall assessment directly contradict Bergoglio’s stated rationale for Traditionis Custodes?
Those who believe that it does need to go back and reread what Bergoglio actually wrote. Before we get to that…
Despite what looks to me like an effort on Ecclesia Dei’s part to stress the positive as best they could, certain negative responses were included in their summary as well. Montagna writes:
The report laments that “in some dioceses the Forma extraordinaria [Extraordinary Form] is not considered a richness for the life of the Church, but rather as an inappropriate, disturbing, and useless element for ordinary pastoral life, and even as ‘dangerous’ and therefore something not to be granted, or to be suppressed, or at least strictly controlled so that it does not spread, in the hope of its eventual disappearance or abrogation.”
Is this really a lamentation, or merely just a report concerning the results of the survey?
At this, it should be obvious to readers that Diane Montagna’s BOMBSHELL is more than just an exposé, it is also an editorial, one that – as we shall see rather clearly moving forward – includes opinions that are based on misrepresentations of the readily available facts.
The overall assessment also states, according to Montagna:
Bishops in Spanish-speaking regions generally “seem to show little interest” in implementing Summorum Pontificum, despite requests from the faithful. Similarly, it noted, “the responses from Italian bishops suggest that, overall, they do not hold the Forma extraordinaria and its related provisions in high regard, with a few exceptions.”
Montagna quotes the summary directly as stating:
Some bishops state that the MP Summorum Pontificum has failed in its aim of fostering reconciliation and therefore request its suppression—either because internal reconciliation within the Church has not yet been fully achieved, or because the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X has not returned to full communion with the Church.
Get that? Some bishops requested the suppression of Summorum Pontificum. Others called for the Traditional Latin Mass to be strictly controlled, with some expressing hope for its abrogation.
How many?
We don’t know, and furthermore, it does not matter.
For those who insist that Francis was the Vicar of Christ, it’s time to cease with the whining and foot stomping: Decisions made by the Roman Pontiff, the visible head of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, are not the product of, or beholden to, the results of some democratic process.
At this, let’s briefly recap what we’ve discussed with a Bergoglian eye’s view of the matter as summarized in the overall assessment:
– Even after fourteen years, only 20% of Novus Ordo dioceses have implemented Summorum Pontificum, i.e., it’s not directly relevant in the other 80% of dioceses, and therefore, in the overwhelming majority of parishes.
– In some of those places, Summorum is a source of unspecified unrest.
– A full 70% of the bishops weren’t concerned enough to respond to the questionnaire at all. Evidently, the Novus Ordo and the Council are fully entrenched in those places.
– Some bishops responded by specifically calling the Traditional Latin Mass “dangerous”
– Some bishops expressed a desire for the Traditional Latin Mass to be more tightly controlled and even suppressed.
– Others pointed out that Summorum hasn’t led to the hoped for “internal reconciliation in the Church,” i.e., it has not provided a service to unity.
– Some bishops fear a “division into two Churches” and believe that groups attached to the Latin Mass “reject” the Second Vatican Council. (Bergoglio stated the same and they are correct.)
– Entire nations reportedly have little interest in Summorum at all.
On the other side of the leger, however, some bishops raised serious concerns about the idea of reigning in the Traditional Mass.
Among those reported by Montagna:
– “Weakening or suppressing Summorum Pontificum would seriously damage the life of the Church, as it would recreate the tensions that the document [Summorum] had helped to resolve.”
– Some bishops thought a legislative change to Summorum Pontificum would “foster the departure of disappointed faithful from the Church toward the Society of St. Pius X or to other schismatic groups,” giving rise to “a resurgence of the liturgical wars.”
– Changing Summorum, according to some bishops, might “even foster the emergence of a new schism.”
– Lastly, some feared doing so would risk delegitimizing John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
In light of all of this, the Resist-the-Pope crowd is acting as if the questionnaire responses as summarized by Ecclesia Dei represent a hands down win for the Traditional Mass.
Not even close.
The bishops who spoke out against the idea of tinkering with Summorum were a very small minority compared to the whole, and their concerns were more than offset by two things:
One, pleas from other bishops who evidently share Bergoglio’s hatred for tradition and wanted him to suppress the Traditional Latin Mass, and two, the fact that a much larger number of bishops – a very large majority, actually – evidently don’t give a hoot either way. Simply put, dioceses and parishes where Summorum Pontificum is a major concern are outliers.
Am I pleased to point this out? No, not at all, but it’s the truth.
Now, with all of this in mind, let us ask:
Does Montagna’s BOMBSHELL clearly indicate that Bergoglio was lying when he wrote in Traditionis Custodes that he “considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?”
The answer is no, absolutely not. The overall assessment produced by Ecclesia Dei in no way proves that Bergoglio was lying.
Even so, Raymond Arroyo felt empowered to declare about the man that he called Holy Father:
The justification for Pope Francis rescinding the Traditional Latin Mass was predicated on the lie that the world’s bishops demanded it.
Go back and scour Traditionis Custodes and the accompanying letter to bishops. Nowhere does Francis claim that “the world’s bishops demanded” the abrogation of Summorum Pontificum. The closest statement one will find is the following:
Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.
What motivated Jorge to make the firm decision that he made? Conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II. This is made even more clear elsewhere in the text, as we will discuss momentarily.
Furthermore, as the overall assessment makes plain, there were requests from certain bishops to abrogate Summorum Pontificum and to crack down on the Traditional Latin Mass. Francis does not imply that a majority of bishops made that request, much less every bishop.
While the High Priests of the Resist-the-Pope movement are pleased to wail about statistics, the fact remains that the Roman Pontiff’s authority is not a numbers game.
Diane Montagna – whose good work reporting from the belly of the beast I very much appreciate – also played a little fast and loose with the truth.
She stated that Archbishop Vigneron’s response to the questionnaire included the following statement: “My advice is to maintain the discipline and norms set out in Summorum Pontificum…”
This, Montagna insists, “according to the official report” is what “the majority of bishops had actually requested.”
Her math doesn’t even come close to adding up. Neither does the following statement made by Montagna:
[Francis] told the bishops that he was “constrained” by their “requests” to revoke not only Summorum Pontificum but “all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs” that preceded his new decree.
This simply isn’t true. What Bergoglio stated in his explanatory letter to the bishops, which I invite you to reread to confirm for yourself, is the following:
In defense of the unity of the Body of Christ, I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors. [Emphasis added]
This he said in light of, not survey results or specific requests from bishops, but rather the idea that:
[There is a] close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.”
In many cases (e.g., mine to be sure), this is absolutely true. Francis went on repeat this same concern:
I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”.
No, it cannot be said that the questionnaire results served as the alleged “foundation” for Traditionis Custodes. So, what is?
IT’S THE COUNCIL, STUPID!
Bergoglio was very clear, his decision to suppress the Traditional Latin Mass rested squarely on Vatican Council II, which was mentioned no less than twenty times between Traditionis Custodes and the letter to bishops that accompanied it. He writes:
To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.
And what was the Council’s intention? Francis describes it, accurately”
The Bishops gathered in ecumenical council asked that it [the Traditional Roman Rite] be reformed.
The bishops of Vatican II never intended for the Traditional Roman Rite as they knew it to continue untouched alongside a new rite. Rather, they envisioned one rite moving forward, namely, the traditional rite reformed. And guess what? It’s here. It’s called the Novus Ordo Missae, just as promulgated by another man that the resisters insist was pope.
CONCLUSION
Francis made it perfectly clear: The Second Vatican Council is the real foundation for Traditionis Custodes. As for the overall assessment under discussion? It did exactly nothing to crack it.
So, in the end, Diane Montagna’s BOMBSHELL is empty and devoid of substance, just like the Resist-the-Pope movement itself.
