There’s a dust up currently taking place in Catholic media circles concerning the way in which certain self-identified “traditionalist” writers and publishers are treating the topic of hermeticism, which has been described as “a system of spiritual transformation using occult disciplines.”
The controversy itself is not entirely new. Since the late 19th century, interest in pre-Christian hermetic practices has grown.
Along the way, various writers have openly posited that the mystical language of hermetic thought, which is based upon the belief that the spiritual world is every bit as real as (or even more so than) the material, may be usefully leveraged in the Church’s work of evangelization, even as occult ritual practices themselves are condemned.
At issue specifically, at present, is a book written by philosopher Sebastian Morello, published by Os Justi Press (founded by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski), titled, “Mysticism, Magic, & Monasteries,” reviews of the same written by Michael Warren Davis and Thomas Mirus, and a response to their critiques written by Morello.
Anyone wishing to get entirely up to speed on the details of this particular iteration of the controversy must be willing to dedicate several hours of their life to reading each of the articles linked above, and this apart from the time it would take to read “Mysticism, Magic, & Monasteries” itself.
Even then, it is clear from the reactions of those who did make the effort (as did I) to read the more than 10,000 words of which the three linked articles are comprised, one may very well come away wondering exactly what Morello’s position actually is. Perhaps this is just the nature of essays treating of so-called “esoteric knowledge.” If you know, you know. If not…
In any case, the good news is that, like most barbs between leading members of the conciliar counterfeit church, such is not necessary in order to get to the heart of the matter.
The reason for all of the confusion is simple: Not one of the players involved – Morello, Kwasniewski, Davis, or Mirus – has a grasp of basic Catholic ecclesiology.
[NOTE: Evidently, Michael Warren Davis left the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy at some point in 2024. Even so, his views on the Church, particularly those written before his departure, are presumably shared by the other three men mentioned above.]
In his response to the book reviews published by the latter two writers, Morello cites an essay that he wrote in 2023, which includes the following:
…the decay of the institutional Church is ever more evident… The situation to which I refer is what I’ve been calling for some time now the Church’s “post-authority epoch” … the institution that the Incarnate Word established on earth to lead “all nations” to “all truth” has lost its authority.
There is no “institutional Church” distinguishable from a divine Church, no more than there is a human Jesus who is distinct from the divine Jesus. Our Lord is one person with two natures, one human and one divine. So too is His Mystical Body, the Church, one (as well as holy and Apostolic).
The Church is an institution, founded by Our Lord “as a human society,” and yet she is not “a mere human institution” insofar as she is ever united with Christ, “the Divine Head of the whole Body.” (cf Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis 19,40,64)
It is Morello’s impoverished view of the Church that leads him to believe that the Church “has lost its authority.” This, of course, is an impossibility, for it would be tantamount to her defection or, more specifically, as severance from the Divine Head from whom the Church’s authority comes.
Morello writes as if the faithful are essentially orphans:
As Christians have accepted that they must treat the Church’s authoritative offices with evermore suspicion, they’ve asked themselves—tacitly or otherwise—what it means to “follow the Lamb wherever He goes” in an institution that is largely repudiating His mission (Apocalypse 14:4).
Let’s pause here for the moment. As said, the Church is an institution both human and divine. We may think of it in a manner analogous to the hypostatic union. As such, she cannot and never will repudiate the mission given by Christ who is her Head.
To be clear, certain men (many in number in our day), including those who claim to be Catholic both lay and ordained, may repudiate the Church’s mission, but the institution, the Bride of Christ herself, is not capable of any such thing, no more than she is capable of divorcing herself from He who enjoined that mission upon her.
Morello goes on:
In response, many have intensified their personal devotional lives and focused on cultivating the habits of intimacy with God. As this progressively becomes the only option, Christians—I have suggested—will likely need to be more open to a broader spiritual tradition which has been at home in the Church sometimes less and sometimes more, depending on the era.
Pay close attention: Morello is suggesting that the faithful, thanks to the miserable state of “the Church” (the conciliar counterfeit church, which he mistakenly identifies as the Catholic Church), have no other choice than to redouble their efforts to seek sanctity via their personal devotions.
What he grossly underestimates is the one true Church’s indispensable role as Holy Mother and Teacher, she who alone can guarantee the purity of their devotions, guiding her children safely along the way that leads to intimate union with God, and apart from whom the sheep are exposed as prey to the ravening wolves that prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Having lost sight of this truth, Morello opines that the faithful of today, veritable orphans that he imagines them to be, would do well to “be more open to a broader spiritual tradition.”
Broader than what? Broader than that which has traditionally been offered by the Catholic Church as aids toward divine intimacy, that is, prior to the Church allegedly losing her authority and entering into her present-day state of decay.
Specifically, Morello appears to be suggesting that, given the Church’s apparent untrustworthiness, one may very well benefit from an examination of hermetic spirituality, not as an end unto itself, but rather as a tool for drawing closer to God.
Some of Morello’s readers (thanks in part to the trust many place in Peter Kwasniewski’s judgment) are likely to attempt just this, which seems about as wise as traversing a demonic minefield in the hope that doing so will serve as a short cut to Heaven.
In conclusion, this entire affair, the impetus for it, and all of the confusion surrounding it, is directly attributable to the fact that the conciliar counterfeit church has fooled many otherwise intelligent men into believing that it is the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
I would steer very clear of seeking spiritual guidance, or even casual advice, from any such writer or commentator.
