Is The TLM Destroying The Faith?

Pew Research has come out with its latest numbers on the state of the Catholic Faith (and other faiths) in the United States. The numbers are not pretty (they also may not be reliable: see here). Catholics have dropped three full percentage points between 2007 and 2014.

Now, some websites have attributed this failure to "FrancisChurch" and the "erroneous" doctrine promoted by John Paul II's New Evangelization. But, there is another way to look at this data.

After all, Summorum Pontificum, the letter which made clear that priests were free to use the Roman Missal to celebrate Mass, was released in July, 2007 and became effective on the Triumph of the Cross, September 14, 2007.  So, the Pew numbers are actually tailor-made to take a quick look at how well the Traditional Latin Mass has helped bring people into the Church.

This is especially true given that not every area of the country lost Catholics. Two states, Indiana and North Carolina, experienced no net change in Catholic population (highlighted in yellow in the chart below). Five states, Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, New Mexico and Washington, actually had net gains in Catholic population percentages since 2007 (highlighted in green in the chart below).

So, if the TLM was changing hearts and minds, if it was bringing people to the Faith or to deeper Faith, we would expect to see states with high numbers of TLM parishes experiencing a renewal of Faith, while those states with few or no TLM parishes experiencing net losses in Catholic population percentages.

Sadly, the Pew data doesn't break down the Catholic population changes on a diocesan level, but merely on a state level. Still, that should be granular enough to show at least some effect. I used a popular TLM website to determine how many TLM parishes were in each state. The site indicated that some of the parishes listed no longer offered the TLM, but did not indicate in what year the TLM ended.

As a result, I used the most conservative measure I could to favor the TLM parishes - even if a parish discontinued the use of the TLM (and many did), I counted it as being active during the full seven-year period of this study.

Why? Well, due to the inherently attractive nature of the TLM, I assumed no TLM parish would have shut down due to lack of interest. Undoubtedly, the bishops who shut down the TLM Mass offerings in these parishes did so only because they couldn't stand the tremendous competition the TLM parishes offered to the spiritually inferior Novus Ordo Mass. Besides, the TLM is so powerful that even a little of that marvelous Tridentine grace should go a long way, right? Thus, we can safely assume that if the TLM was offered in the diocese for even a short time, that glow would continue to reverberate through the diocese for a while after (whether SSPX parishes have this effect would constitute a separate study).

So, that having been said, let's look at the numbers. The 2007, 2014 and Change columns are expressed in percentages, the # of TLM Parishes/State is the raw number of parishes offering the Latin Mass in each state.

The correlation coefficient at the end of each section is a number between 0 and 1 (or -1) that expresses the effect the TLM has on the state.

A positive number indicates the presence of the TLM correlates with more people being attracted to the Catholic Faith in the region, a negative number indicates the presence of the TLM correlates with people being driven away from the Faith in that region. The bigger the number, the bigger the effect. Negative numbers are given in red.

	Region	2007	2014	Change	# TLM /State	# of TLM Ended	% TLM ended
Illinois	Midwest	32	28	-4	25	3	12
Indiana	Midwest	18	18	0	9	2	22
Iowa	Midwest	25	18	-7	7	0	0
Kansas	Midwest	23	18	-5	7	0	0
Michigan	Midwest	23	18	-5	22	1	5
Minnesota	Midwest	28	22	-6	18	1	6
Missouri	Midwest	18	16	-2	10	1	10
Nebraska	Midwest	31	23	-8	3	0	0
North Dakota	Midwest	na	26	na	3	1	33
Ohio	Midwest	21	18	-3	14	0	0
South Dakota	Midwest	na	22	na	5	0	0
Wisconsin	Midwest	29	25	-4	20	1	5
MIDWEST	MIDWEST	24	21	-3	143	10	7
Midwest Correlation coefficient (r): 0.16469292081087
TLM Close Correlation coefficient (r): 0.76024687859368
Connecticut	Northeast	43	33	-10	12	1	8
Maine	Northeast	29	21	-8	2	0	0
Massachusetts	Northeast	43	34	-9	20	4	20
New Hampshire	Northeast	29	26	-3	5	0	0
New Jersey	Northeast	42	34	-8	18	1	6
New York	Northeast	39	31	-8	38	4	11
Pennsylvania	Northeast	29	24	-5	28	5	18
Rhode Island	Northeast	na	42	na	6	1	17
Vermont	Northeast	na	22	na	2	1	50
NORTHEAST	NORTHEAST	37	30	-7	131	17	13
Northeast Correlation coefficient (r): -0.12370036292696
TLM Close Correlation coefficient (r): -0.23331413131435
Maryland	South	19	15	-4	5	1	20
Delaware	South	na	22	na	3	0	0
Alabama	South	6	7	1	4	0	0
Arkansas	South	5	8	3	6	0	0
DC	South	na	20	na	1	0	0
Florida	South	26	21	-5	19	1	5
Georgia	South	12	9	-3	3	0	0
Kentucky	South	14	10	-4	7	0	0
Louisiana	South	28	26	-2	17	2	12
Mississippi	South	9	4	-5	1	1	100
North Carolina	South	9	9	0	12	1	8
Oklahoma	South	12	8	-4	4	0	0
South Carolina	South	8	10	2	5	2	40
Tennessee	South	7	6	-1	8	0	0
Texas	South	24	23	-1	24	1	4
Virginia	South	14	12	-2	19	0	0
West Virginia	South	7	6	-1	6	1	17
SOUTH	SOUTH	16	15	-1	144	10	7
Southern Correlation coefficient (r): -0.033749189489198
TLM Close Correlation coefficient (r): -0.23177400592773
Alaska	West	14	16	2	3	0	0
Arizona	West	25	21	-4	7	0	0
California	West	31	28	-3	55	8	15
Colorado	West	19	16	-3	6	0	0
Hawaii	West	22	20	-2	3	0	0
Idaho	West	18	10	-8	1	0	0
Montana	West	23	17	-6	2	0	0
Nevada	West	27	25	-2	3	0	0
New Mexico	West	26	34	8	4	1	25
Oregon	West	14	12	-2	6	0	0
Utah	West	10	5	-5	2	0	0
Washington	West	16	17	1	11	0	0
Wyoming	West	na	14	na	3	0	0
WEST	WEST	25	23	-2	106	9	8
Western Correlation coefficient (r): -0.014625385914181
TLM Close Correlation coefficient (r): 0.6335175425702
TOTAL US	TOTAL US	24	21	-3
Total Correlation coefficient (r): -0.20800323012833
TLM Close Correlation coefficient (r): 0.064769205954515

Results

Well, that's rather disappointing, isn't it? Only the Midwest region showed the TLM having a positive impact. In every other region, the TLM actually seems to correlate to a negative impact on the Catholic Faith. For the nation as a whole, the use of the TLM is associated with the loss of Catholic Faith.

The correspondence is actually worse than the numbers indicate because New Mexico has an outlier condition which is not reflected in the chart. New Mexico is home to the Las Cruces diocese, which had absolutely no TLM recorded as being offered in the diocese at all. That's right - one-third of the state was apparently completely lacking in Latin Masses during the survey period. Yet that same state experienced an 8 percentage point increase in Catholic population, the largest increase in the nation.

Similarly, North Dakota's Bismarck diocese had nothing in it, and Mississippi's only diocese closed down the only Traditional Latin Mass it had. We don't have a 2007 for North Dakota, so we don't know how that closure affected the state's Catholics, but Mississippi experienced a 5% loss in that seven year interval. Was Mississippi's loss due to the opening or the closing of the TLM Mass?

Well, again, look at the correlation coefficients.

In the Midwest, closing a TLM parish actually increased the probability that the percentage of Catholics would increase, and by quite a large margin. 0.76 is a great correlation.

In the Northeast, opening TLM parishes dropped the Faith, but closing the TLM parish dropped it twice as much. This is the only area that shows withdrawing the TLM as having a worse effect than making it available.

In the South, the opening a TLM parish was bad, but closing it was seven times worse.
In the West, opening a TLM parish dropped the percentage of Catholics, while closing the TLM parishes actually increased the probability that Catholics would retain their Faith.

For the nation as a whole, there is very little positive or negative effect created by closing a TLM parish.

So, can we conclude that the use of the TLM is a net positive for American Catholics?
Well, further, more granular study could certainly be done. But given the numbers in this first pass through the Pew data, it's hard to see how that conclusion could be drawn.


UPDATE:
I did a similar analysis of SSPX parishes which tends to confirm the effects found with the TLM parishes. Interestingly, from a national perspective, the existence or absence of an SSPX parish has essentially no effect on overall Catholic identity - an absence that would be expected, given that the dioceses are likely to at least report somewhat favorably on a TLM in communion with the local bishop, but would remain totally silent about TLMs not offered in communion with the bishop.

UPDATE II:
For those who wish to argue that the TLM is producing vocations, don't forget this article or this one. And why might the TLM be destroying the Faith? How dare you ask? 

Disrespecting Islam

Pamela Geller recently held a "Draw Mohammed" cartoon contest in Garland, TX. Two Muslim men took offense, and took AK-47s to the event to express their offense. After grazing one officer in the ankle with a bullet, both gentlemen received a Texas welcome and are now cooling in the morgue.

 

Many commentators have responded to this event with two observations:

1. These Muslim men were completely out-of-line, but Pamela Gellar provoked it because she was "disrespecting Islam."
2. This country was founded on respect for religion and Gellar broke with that American tradition by holding the "Draw Mohammed" event at all.

 Both observations are complete crap.

Argument 1

If the commentators really believe that disrespect for Islam has no place in American society, then they must, by making the statements they have, plead guilty to disrespecting Islam. They have made a cartoon of Islam just as surely as any of Pamela Geller's contestants.

 

We can certainly agree that it is disrespectful to a religion to argue that some tenet of that religion is completely ridiculous. Geller's argument is that it is completely ridiculous to punish the drawing of images of Mohammed with the death penalty. Do you see the anti-Geller position's problem?

To be logically consistent, anti-Geller commentators cannot simultaneously insist that Geller was disrespectful AND that the death penalty for cartoonists is not acceptable. By the very fact that anyone says killing over a cartoon is ridiculous or unacceptable, they are making the SAME argument Geller makes. The only difference is, they are making the argument with words instead of pictures.

So, when they say that Geller is disrespectful for holding the contest, they are also admitting that they themselves are disrespectful when they assert that the death penalty should not apply to cartoonists. After all, that was the whole point of shooting the place up, right? Many Muslims insist that the death penalty MUST apply to cartoonists in order to show proper respect for Islam. Geller's critics can only avoid being hypocrites by agreeing with the gentlemen wielding AK-47s, and arguing that in order to show proper American respect for religion, we must allow Muslims to carry out their religious ritual of human sacrifice.

Argument 2

This country was built on a lot of different principles, but respect for religion was never one of them. Keep in mind that for America's first century, the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty was understood to apply only to the federal government, not to state governments. If states wished to favor one religion over another, they were free to do so. Thus, Catholics were locked out of many states' government offices, even locked out of public teaching positions at the state level, right through the 1890s.

Why do you think Virginia had a religious liberty clause written into her constitution? Because without that clause, the state was free to discriminate, and Thomas Jefferson knew it. The Bill of Rights concerned federal government action, not state governments. The idea that the federal constitution's restrictions could be imposed on states only appeared after the Civil War, when we slaughtered large groups of our own citizens in order to establish the 14th Amendment principle that the federal government could force its will on state governments and the state governments had to sit still and take it.

I'm not saying the Fourteenth Amendment was a bad idea. Even the founders recognized that slavery was going to have to be outlawed at some point. I'm just pointing out that, until the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution was not seen as having any necessary applicability to states.


So, no, despite the best efforts of Catholic settlers to create such a principle, our country was not founded on respect for religious freedom. It's a happy myth we maintain in the 21st century, but it is a myth. And, to be honest, even Catholics don't follow the whole "religious respect" thing.

We don't have respect for a religion that performs human sacrifice. We crushed the Aztecs and the Incas because they performed ritual human sacrifice. Muslims have a tendency to do the same, and Catholics do not respect that aspect of Islamic faith. We don't have any respect for a lot of stupid ideas in other religious traditions, nor does our Faith require that we do.

As Catholics, we are required to respect ONLY those principles in other religions that reflect Catholic principles. It is our duty as Catholics to at least studiously ignore anything that does not resonate with Catholic principles while we educate the heathen in Catholic ways, and - if necessary - actively outlaw and suppress those aspects of any belief system which egregiously violate Catholic principles. Thus, the conquistadors and the crusaders were perfectly right to take up the sword against the practitioners of human sacrifice.

Pamela Geller's critics need to stop their hypocrisy, stop trying to pretend orthodox Muslims espouse Christian beliefs. They don't.

Kneeling Before the Poor

In a recent radio address, Pope Francis expressed his heart's desire: "How I wish," he said, "that Christians could kneel in veneration when a poor person enters the church."

Some Catholics are taking issue with the Pope. "We kneel only before Christ Himself!" they exclaim heatedly.

Now, before I take a step more, let me quote St. Augustine (all saint quotes are taken from the preceding link):

Try to acquire the virtues you believe lacking in your brothers. Then you will no longer see their defects, for you will no longer have them yourself.

Some would say I am not virtuous, because I see a lack of virtue in this response to the Pope. I absolutely cannot argue with that assertion. I wholeheartedly agree with it. I am not virtuous. That having been said, I will merely point out that the people who attack the Pope for this remark have a problem. The Pope is quoting, almost word for word, a saint of the Catholic Church:

The poor and the sick are our owners and they represent the very person of Jesus Christ.
St. Luigi Scrosoppi

So, by asserting that the Pope is wrong, they are asserting the saint is wrong. In fact, they are asserting Christ is wrong.

The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of theleast of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.' “Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.' "

I may not like the papal emphasis on the poor. But, the extent to which I don't like it demonstrates how NOT virtuous I am. In fact, it demonstrates how NOT Catholic I truly am. Catholics talk and act like Pope Francis, they don't talk and act like me.

Here are some additional saint quotes that prove Pope Francis is holier than you and I are:

No one has ever been accused for not providing ornaments, but for those who neglect their neighbour a hell awaits with an inextinguishable fire and torment in the company of the demons. Do not, therefore, adorn the church and ignore your afflicted brother, for he is the most precious temple of all.  St John Chrysostom 

He alone loves the Creator perfectly who manifests a pure love for his neighbor.
St. Bede the Venerable 

If you want God to hear your prayers, hear the voice of the poor. If you wish God to anticipate your wants, provide those of the needy without waiting for them to ask you. Especially anticipate the needs of those who are ashamed to beg. To make them ask for alms is to make them buy it.  St. Thomas of Villanova 

Let us not love by words alone, but let us love until it hurts. 
Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta 

So long as there are poor,
I am poor,
So long as there are prisons,
I am a prisoner,
So long as there are sick,
I am weak,
So long as there is ignorance,
I must learn the truth,
So long as there is hate,
I must love,
So long as there is hunger,
I am famished.
Such is the identification Our Divine Lord would have us make with all whom He made in love and for love.
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

Now, no one cried "foul!" when Bishop Fulton Sheen said the same thing the Pope is saying today. If I dislike the Pope for saying this and things like it, then I dislike Christ.

That's a problem.

You and I, we need to solve our problems and remove the beams from our own eyes before we start attacking the Pope's vision.

On the "Missing" Work of Mercy

Some people who deeply dislike Pope Francis are making much of the fact that Misericordiae Vultus, the Pope's latest Bull on the works of mercy, seems to be conspicuously lacking one of the works. Specifically, it seems to lack the third spiritual work of mercy, "admonish the sinner."

Sigh.

Those same people never seem to consider that the Bull is directed towards all of us. We are all sinners who fail to do the works of mercy that we are supposed to be doing.

Thus, the entire Bull is an example of how to admonish the sinner.

Pope Francis lives the Faith.
Us?
Not so much.

God-Given Rights

So, recently Hillary has been mouthing off about the interaction between religion and rights. Let's see if she has a grasp of either one.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, 

America's founders refer to "unalienable Rights". How does that work?

God is Truth. Catholic Faith is the most accurate representation of Who God is, therefore it is the most accurate representation of Truth.

We are persons in the image and likeness of the original Persons. The three Persons of the Trinity are distinguished ONLY by the relationships between the three Persons: Begetting and Begotten (Father and Son), Spirating and Spirated (Father-Son and Spirit, Spirit and Father-Son).

Each Person defined by these relationships has Right relationship with the other two Persons. Each Person has a right way to interact with the other Two Persons. These are God's "rights". "Rights" refer to how a relationship is ordered, what is permissible within the relationship and what is not permissible.

Because God has rights, we have rights. Our rights flow from the image and likeness we are of God, they flow from our relationship with Him. Indeed, every "right" I have is merely an instance of my right relationship with God. Insofar as I do not have a right relationship with God, I have no "rights."

So, for instance, I do not have the "right" to murder because that would put my relationship with God in an un-right status. I only have the right to do that which keeps me in right relationship with God. That is what it means to say we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

Rights are absolute because God is absolute and my relationship with God is the norm for everything I do. There is a way to maintain the relationship and grow it (a right) and a way to destroy it (not a right).

Every action, whether religious or not, is a reflection of my right relationship with God. If I ignore this divine relationship, compartmentalize it, pretend it doesn't exist, then I am saying there is no "right" relationship with God.

The moment I deny God exists, my rights degrade. Now my rights can, at most, center around what I think my relationship with other people should be. Perhaps I think other people should define the relationship, perhaps I think I should. It doesn't matter. At that moment, my "rights" are based in what I like, not in any external norm.

Now, being a good Catholic, doing what a good Catholic does, maintains my rights because the exercise of Catholic Faith is the only way anyone has to maintain his relationship with God. There is no other way. This is what Vatican II means when it says:

This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit. It regards, in the first place, the free exercise of religion in society. This Vatican Council takes careful note of these desires in the minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly in accord with truth and justice... (emphasis added)

This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ. (Dignitatis Humanae, #1)

The desire for free exercise of religion is "greatly in accord with truth and justice". Notice, the Council does NOT say that religious freedom is in perfect accord with truth and justice. As Aquinas points out, referring to St. Paul, the natural law is written on every person's heart, but written without the clarity and force we need, nor do we have the power of grace to follow what is written on our heart even if it were more clear (CCC 1954-1966).

We have "freedom of conscience" only in the sense that our natural knowledge is limited. In fact, our natural knowledge is often erroneous. Thus, our natural understanding of something may lead us to an action which is objectively evil, but whose evil we cannot recognize. We are blind to the evil, therefore God will not hold us accountable for the evil. Invincible ignorance is the basis for Vatican II's religious freedom of conscience claim. As the Council points out, free exercise of religion is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. The end, the object, the purpose is to join and live the true religion of the one Church of Christ. "Religious freedom... leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ"

So, "religious freedom" cannot be a right except insofar as it is the freedom to be a Catholic or to do what a good Catholic would do. The phrase "religious freedom", used in any other sense, is a shibboleth. It is a two-year old wielding a knife. The two-year old is not blamed by the Church for wielding the knife or for the damage the knife inflicts because the Church recognizes the invincible ignorance of the two-year old.  She is willing to suffer the damage the two-year old inflicts while She trains the child in the right way to use a knife.

For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two edged sword; and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

Shilling for Donors

Case 1

Let's say you encountered a petition from a Catholic organization that purported to petition the Pope to support traditional marriage.

What would be the point of the petition, exactly?

1. Do you actually think the organization will send the petition to the Pope?
2. If the petition is sent to the Pope, do you seriously think he is going to change what he will do based on the petition? 
3. Do you seriously think the Pope holds a position other than the position the petition begs support for?
4. If so, what would this other position be, that we have to beg the Pope to change his mind?

There are several possibilities. None of them seem good. If the Catholic organization doesn't:

1. Intend to send the petition to the Pope, then why pretend, by putting in the premise, that it will be sent? Isn't the pretence that they WILL send it to the Pope then actually a lie?
2. Think it will change the Pope's mind because the Pope already agrees with the premise stated in the petition, then why gather the signatures to present to the Pope?
3. Think it will change the Pope's mind because the Pope already firmly disagrees with the premise stated in the petition, then are we trying to make the Pope Catholic? Doesn't the existence of the petition mean that we don't really think he is?

I asked Lifesite News this. This was the answer I received:

Steve Jalsevac The petitions that we undertake have the primary purpose of building movements around the issues that each petition addresses. That is the most powerful result of these petitions. it has been wonderfully effective. The petitions also allow us to increase our email list but we carefully ensure that signers receive additional information emails on the petition subject only if they wish to receive such follow up information. We follow a very ethical procedure on this. And yes, hopefully, after a time, some of those petition signers will donate to LifeSite. (emphasis added)

Alright. At no point during the response did Jalsevac reference the Pope or even Catholic teaching. We don't know if the petition is going to the Pope, nor if LifeSiteNews expects the petition to change (or not change) the Pope's mind. All we know is that one of the big reasons LifeSiteNews created the petition is to build a LifeSiteNews-centered movement with a strong subset of donors. In short, it looks for all the world as if Steve Jalsevac just admitted the whole thing was a marketing ploy.

A marketing ploy made at the expense of the Catholic Church.
LifeSiteNews was apparently willing to sow division among Catholics and imply the Pope needed begging in order to uphold Catholic teaching if that's what it took to fill a donor list and make some cash.

Case 2

Don't believe me?
Then what about this petition to the Pope about Archbishop Cardileone.

Now, why is this petition being sent to the Pope?

1. Does the Pope NOT support the archbishop? 
2. Do we suspect that the Pope may not support the archbishop?
3. Does the Pope need evidence from us that we support the archbishop?
4. Will the Pope remove or keep the archbishop based on this or any other petitions?

The people who are unhappy with the archbishop published a newspaper ad petitioning the Pope for removal of the archbishop. LifeSiteNews created this petition in response. At least one person who signed the LifeSiteNews petition expressed amazement that anyone thought the Pope read San Francisco papers, or, even if he did, that anyone would really believe the Pope would act on a newspaper ad petition in a San Francisco newspaper if he were to encounter one.

But how is LifeSiteNews and its petitioners different from the newspaper petitioners? After all, LifeSiteNews isn't sending its pro-archbishop petition to the newspaper, or to the people who signed the newspaper ad, or to the city government where the newspaper is published, or even to the archbishop. No, they invoke the Pope, as if they were going to send it to him. But as one of the people who signed the ad pointed out, they aren't even asking the Pope to take any action in regards to the archbishop. So what's the purpose of the "petition?"

If you're going to collect signatures to send to someone, shouldn't you send it to someone who disagrees with you or has power over the situation that you think may be exercised in the wrong way?

Why would you send a "petition" to someone who agrees with you and who you know will exercise power in the correct way? And if you aren't even going to send it to him, then in what sense is it a petition, since the document will never actually be used to petition anyone?

When I posed these questions, I was told by one of the signers (someone who self-identified as an individual involved in the governance of several non-profits) that a substantial number of signers  know the petition won't be sent to the Pope or to anyone else involved in the situation. I was also told, by the same person, that I was very uncharitable to use these facts to argue that the entire exercise was a lie on the part of the people who created the petition and a self-deception on the part of the signers.

Case 3

LifeSiteNews quotes janitor about cardinal-priest dispute. 

Actually, LifeSiteNews quoted a canon lawyer in a cardinal-priest dispute, but it amounts to the same thing. Disputes between a bishop (who may or may not be a cardinal) and his priests are the business of that group. Unless a canon lawyer is specifically invited in by one or both, or is at least a member of the diocese where the dispute is taking place, that canon lawyer has no business expressing a public opinion on the dispute.

Canon lawyer opinions are not binding on anyone. If the opinion is negative towards the cardinal, it can undermine the cardinal's authority. If it is negative towards the priests, it can undermine the priests' standing in their communities. Why would an American canon lawyer weigh in on a dispute in an English diocese with an uninvited opinion? Why would anyone care what he says?

This is especially true when the canon lawyer is employed by a diocese. Employees of dioceses are hired to be shills, ahem, paid spokesman, for the local bishop. They cannot weigh in publicly like this unless their own bishop wants to make somebody look bad. Normally, bishops are chary of making each other look bad.

The bishop will allow one of his minions to publicly attack whatever enemy the bishop has targeted. A fine example of this is how Dr. Edward Peters, canon lawyer, both misrepresented the facts and acted as his bishop's shill in the controversy with Michael Voris. And here we have the exact SAME shill attacking a cardinal. Looks like Ed got his bishop's directive to go attack a cardinal, for reasons known only to his own bishop. Remember, nothing happens in a diocese unless the bishop is willing to let it happen. If Ed is very publicly putting an oar in where his bishop doesn't want it, Ed would be looking for a new job right now. He isn't, so his bishop is good with the attack.

When I pointed out that Ed was just a shill, used by LifeSiteNews for their own income revenue generation, this was Karl Keating's Facebook response:

Karl Keating Steve Kellmeyer: if you keep making such comments, people will think it's you who has problems. (By the way, you don't seem to understand the definition of "shill.")

Steve Kellmeyer: Karl Keating, if you think Ed acquitted himself well in the whole "Mr. Voris, you should stop calling your organization Catholic" discussion, then you aren't as clear a thinker as I always considered you to be.

As the Voris discussion showed, Ed mostly spouts his cardinals opinion. That's what he's paid to do. He's a paid shill. 

Karl Keating: Steve Kellmeyer: Why did you bring up Voris? He's irrelevant to this discussion. Besides, I don't know what happened between him and Ed Peters, and I don't care.

As for Ed, it's no surprise that he "mostly spouts his cardinal's opinion" (even though Archbishop Vigneron isn't a cardinal).

Ed, like the rest of the faculty at Sacred Heart Major Seminary (among whom I have friends, including Ed Echeverria, Bob Fastiggi, Ralph Martin, and Janet Smith), is a believing Catholic, as is the archbishop, so of course Ed's opinion normally will match his boss's.

That isn't because Ed's paid to be a yes-man (which he isn't: otherwise he wouldn't have written against a cardinal [Nichols], cardinals tending to be friends with archbishops) but because he and Vigneron are in agreement on nearly everything.

That's how it should be, among the orthodox, whose religious opinions should be so in tune with the Church's teaching that these people seem to be echoing one another.

Steve Kellmeyer:Mr. Keating,

1) it isn't Ed's business to get between a priest and his bishop - which is exactly what Ed is publicly doing here. You would think a canon lawyer would have more sense. And since, in Christian charity, I can't imagine Ed is stupid enough to think otherwise, he must have another reason to put his oar in the water.

2) Ed's bishop may very well have reasons of his own for getting Ed to start a public campaign against another bishop. But it is certainly the case that Ed is the bishop's paid shill, which you haven't denied.

3) Having someone as a personal friend doesn't make them right. I find it remarkable that you would even raise that as a point. It's completely irrelevant.

4) Ed's past bad judgement and paid shill behaviour is relevant to his paid shill behaviour here

At which point, oddly, Mr. Keating disappeared from the discussion.

Now, I have been accused of being uncharitable. The accusation is perfectly accurate in the sense that I am not yet a saint, so I certainly lack charity.

But is it uncharitable to ask LifeSiteNews to stop invoking the Pope when they want to raise money for themselves?

Is it uncharitable to point out that a canon lawyer employed by a diocese is very publicly putting his oar into disputes that do not concern his bishop or his diocese, yet remains unrebuked by his boss? Why would a bishop allow his canon lawyer to stir up bad blood with another bishop? A cardinal? Nothing happens in a chancery office, nothing happens in a seminary, without the bishop's approval. Is it uncharitable to point this out? Or is it merely factual? 

In any case, LifeSiteNews seems to have pulled Pope Francis' name off the last petition, for which I applaud them. Perhaps they will take more care in the future. I certainly have high hopes that they will.