For nearly three weeks, Bishop Michael Martin of Charlotte has faced a barrage of criticism stemming from his efforts to implement Traditionis Custodes in his diocese. The backlash to his May 23 letter — which stated that, as of July 8, the number of locations offering the weekly celebration of the 1962 Roman Missal (often called the “Traditional Latin Mass” or TLM) will be reduced from four to one — has been widespread and fierce. The intensity seems to have decreased only recently.

Although only an estimated 1,000 of Charlotte’s 565,000 Catholics (fewer than 0.2%) attend the TLM on a typical Sunday, this story consumed certain sectors of Catholic media for a fortnight. Such coverage is not unprecedented for Latin Mass controversies, however. Remarkably, in a time when priest shortages and financial struggles have forced dioceses to shut down scores of mainstream Catholic churches and schools with little national attention, the relatively miniscule Catholic traditionalist movement has received high-profile media exposure in major newspapers about issues including the cancellation of a single modestly-attended Latin Mass in Washington, DC, or the relocation of a Scottish TLM from one chapel to another six miles away.

Resistance in Charlotte

The events in the diocese of Charlotte led to a deluge of podcasts, articles, and op-eds from conservative Catholic media outlets heaping criticism on Bishop Martin and his leadership. Further, the expected social media hysteria that inevitably accompanies such matters remained true to form.

Beyond the criticism of his public letter to the diocese, Bishop Martin has come under fire for two internal diocesan documents that were leaked to the press, presumably by diocesan clergy. These provided even more fodder for attacks on the bishop from traditionalists and other reactionaries. One document, described as a “Response to Concerns,” is a FAQ-style list of prepared responses to questions that might be asked by upset parishioners. The other document is an early draft of proposed liturgical guidelines for the diocese.

In the Catholic Church, diocesan priests promise respect and obedience to their bishop when ordained. These leaks suggest a grave violation of these promises they made and have clearly undermined the authority of their bishop, as evidenced by the media outcry.

Further stoking the controversy, the Pillar newsletter has chimed in with articles insinuating that Bishop Martin has mismanaged the diocese and is considering returning a priest-abuser to ministry. A May 29 article claimed (“According to sources close to the Dicastery for Bishops”) that during an April 1 meeting in Rome between Bishop Martin and then-Cardinal Robert Prevost (now Pope Leo XIV), Bishop Martin was told “to move slowly, much more slowly” with plans for a new cathedral in Charlotte.” The insinuation is that Bishop Martin received some form of correction or reprimand from the future pope about his governing style.

Yet Bishop Martin did not show any signs of discord during a May 8 press conference following Leo’s election. The bishop spoke warmly and enthusiastically about the new pope when describing the meeting with Prevost “about a couple of issues here locally.” Was the meeting contentious? Bishop Martin also said that he and the future pope had a fruitful conversation on a wide range of issues, and that he “was very taken by his friendly nature, but also about his awareness of the dynamics — not just of the Church in the United States — but more importantly about the Church around the world.”[1]

The same Pillar article mentioned several anonymous complaints against Martin, and highlighted an anonymous open letter published in January criticizing the bishop’s governance.

The Pillar claimed that this anonymous letter (according to anonymous diocesan sources) “had support from much of the diocesan presbyterate.” The Pillar went on to quote an anonymous source who described the letter as “unusually well-sourced and informed, respectful,” adding that it “explained the issues in our diocese really well, which is why it resonated so much with priests across the theological spectrum.”

I disagree with this assessment and think the letter comes across as only superficially respectful, written with a facade of charity in flowery prose. Behind its pretentious rhetoric is a passive-aggressive message that demeans and accuses the bishop throughout. For example, the following passage is simply an excessively wordy way of saying, “Bishop, if you keep it up you’re going to hell”:

“I hope this letter finds you physically well and spiritually strengthened in your vocation as the new shepherd of our diocese. So few people hold any understanding of the gravity of the office of a bishop, not merely upon the diocese, but upon the man, himself. For while it is easy for most faithful to grasp the potential for glory of such an office well fulfilled, before Almighty God in the eternity of His Beatific Vision, too few consider the counterpunch of what a failure in the same office betrays in eternity.”

The letter’s anonymous author attempts to position himself as a spokesman for discontented voices in the diocese, yet neither he nor the anonymous malcontents he claims to represent have the courage to put their names behind this preposterous screed. While claiming to act in humility and obedience, the author tells the bishop that he is autocratic and out of touch, and even insinuates that Martin is motivated by ambition or careerism (“Many wonder if the pace of change is motivated by a pursuit of promotion to an archdiocese, rather than nurturing the long-term health of our humble diocese in Charlotte”). This missive is clearly a strategic effort to pressure Martin publicly and to discredit his reforms. Subsequently, the Pillar’s promotion of it is an attempt to do the same.

Character Assassination

Potentially even more damaging, a June 2 article in the Pillar by Michelle de Rosa makes the accusation that Bishop Martin “has indicated that he will assess whether to return to ministry a priest who has been accused of both boundary violations and sexual abuse of a minor.”

This is in reference to Bishop Martin’s May 29 update on the case of Father Patrick Hoare, who was removed from active ministry in 2019 by Martin’s predecessor, Bishop Michael Jugis. This update announced the conclusion of Hoare’s attempts to appeal to the Vatican on his removal as pastor, by Bishop Jugis.

Father Hoare was removed as pastor of a large parish over 25-year-old allegations that he molested a minor in Pennsylvania in his late teens or early 20s. In 2020, Bishop Jugis issued a letter explaining that even though the diocesan Lay Review Board (LRB) found that some of the allegations appeared credible, Pennsylvania state law prevented the diocese from accessing the files from the police investigation. Jugis asked the diocesan LRB to conduct its own investigation, but the Board was unable to identify a specific incident of sexual abuse of a minor based on the evidence available.

Bishop Jugis also asked the LRB to investigate several accusations of boundary violations with children in the Diocese of Charlotte. They were found to be credible, but the boundary violations were not of a sexual nature.

In a 2022 letter to parishioners about the case, Bishop Jugis shared that the Vatican had denied two appeals by Father Hoare. He wrote that the Dicastery for Clergy denied Hoare’s initial appeal in July 2021, ruling that the diocese “sufficiently demonstrated grave and lasting cause for the removal.” Jugis said that Hoare then appealed to the Apostolic Signatura, often called the Church’s supreme court, which ruled in November 2022 that Father Hoare’s appeal was “manifestly lacking in foundation” and “must be dismissed.”

This leaves Hoare and the diocese in a complicated situation. Although there is knowledge of allegations, their nature is unknown, and he has not been charged civilly or canonically with sexual abuse. Still, the allegations of boundary violations of a non-sexual nature with children (hugs, shoulder rubs, being “very touchy”) have been found credible.

For his part, Hoare has consistently denied wrongdoing and has fought strenuously to counter the allegations against him. He repeatedly appealed the decision to remove him as pastor and he participated in “an assessment and education program” to address the boundary violations. Fr. Hoare has his supporters. Over 1,800 people signed a Change.org petition to return him to pastoral ministry.

In his update, Bishop Martin wrote, “in considering how Father Hoare might best serve the diocese in the future, I will take into consideration Father Hoare’s satisfactory completion of the recommended assessment and training, along with consultation with diocesan leaders and the LRB.”

Contrary to the Pillar’s claim, Bishop Martin did not say that he was considering returning Hoare to ministry. Bishop Martin’s statement on how Hoare “might best serve the diocese in the future” was vague, but returning such a priest to ministry is risky given the lack of knowledge about what he is said to have done. It would also be a public relations nightmare. In Father Hoare’s case, the possibility of returning to ministry seems less likely than living a quiet life out of the public eye and without an assignment.

The way the Pillar framed this matter harmed Bishop Martin’s reputation and engaged in speculation that went far beyond the facts.

Traditionalists’ Mixed Messages

On May 27, the text of an open letter to Bishop Martin by the pastors from the four parishes currently offering the TLM in the diocese was published on a new and anonymous website called “Faithful Advocate.” In their letter, the priests contended that the TLM had not been a source of division within their parishes, stating, “We can affirm with confidence that this has not been the experience in our parishes.” They appealed to Bishop Martin to reconsider his decision to restrict the TLM to a single location.

However, the broader discourse surrounding the TLM in Charlotte suggests a more complex picture. While the pastors emphasized unity within their communities, online commentary from Charlotte-area proponents has not reflected that claim. In a recent YouTube video, for example, local traditionalist mainstay Jim De Piante insisted, “I absolutely disagree with the very notion that this is a matter of preference. … I am thoroughly convinced certain that the Novus Ordo should be blotted from the face of the earth for all eternity.”

Furthermore, a website called the “Charlotte Latin Mass Community” promotes the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), which rejects the authority of the pope and the bishops and is not in full communion with the Catholic Church. Other “resources” on the website include links to reactionary sites including One Peter Five and Rorate Caeli, as well as talks by heterodox speakers such as Peter Kwasniewski and SSPX Bishop Bernard Fellay.

Nearly four years after Traditionis Custodes, the traditionalist movement still seems unaware that their unhinged ideological attacks on Vatican II, the reformed liturgy, and the hierarchy were a key factor in the restrictions on the TLM. And it seems the traditionalist movement is incapable of coming up with spokespeople who don’t hold radical and extreme views.

I am always amused when traditionalist speaker Peter Kwasniewski is trotted out to explain why Traditionis Custodes is supposedly unfair and unjustified. On May 29, he appeared on EWTN’s The World Over with Raymond Arroyo to argue against Bishop Martin’s decision. During his appearance, he mentioned the leaked “Response to Concerns” document, saying, “I have it printed here.” He then reads from the document, purportedly quoting Bishop Martin: “in this document he admits that most of the faithful who attend the TLM are in complete communion with the Magisterium of the Church and her supreme pontiffs, and do not deny the legitimacy of the liturgical reform.”

This bit is unintentionally humorous for two reasons. First, Kwasniewski misquoted the document, despite reading directly from the page. Bishop Martin wrote that “Many who participate in the TLM in the Diocese of Charlotte are in complete communion,” not most, as Kwasniewski claimed. Big difference.

Second, if there’s anyone in the traditionalist movement who is not in complete communion with the Magisterium of the Church and her supreme pontiffs, and who does deny the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, it’s Peter Kwasniewski. This is a man who discourages the faithful from going to Sunday Mass if only the current liturgy is available. He repeatedly and openly encourages priests to disobey their bishops and for bishops to disobey the pope. Kwasniewski even refuses to acknowledge that the current form of the Roman liturgy is the Roman Rite at all, regularly making statements like, “the modern rite cannot be regarded as the Roman rite or a use thereof, regardless of what Paul VI, Benedict XVI, or anyone else wishes to call it.” He also repeatedly accused Pope Francis of heresy and signed petitions calling for the college of bishops to remove him from office.

If Peter Kwasniewski is a spokesman for traditionalists “in complete communion” with the pope, I don’t want to know what they think a schismatic looks like. Traditionalists often claim that the extremists online are not representative of the movement as a whole. If that is the case, then where are the non-extreme traditionalist spokespeople?

If articulate and faithful traditionalists who don’t hold the views espoused by schismatic public figures like Kwasniewski actually exist, then they have to do a better job of making themselves heard. They also need to publicly distance themselves from the radicals in their ranks. Because right now such moderate figures are invisible.

I am fairly certain that if traditionalists had led the way in granting assent to Amoris Laetitia, Laudato Si’, and the revision to the Church’s teaching on the death penalty (and if they had avoided conspiracist delusions over the Covid-19 virus and vaccine), Traditionis Custodes never would have been promulgated.

Fortunately, it seems that Bishop Martin has not allowed himself to be deceived by traditionalist rhetoric. He seems to understand the situation quite clearly. In his very charitable but frank “Response to Concerns,” he states the situation plainly:

“Catholics in particular are called to give in support of the Church not out of charity, but as a response to the call of the Holy Spirit to be faithful and committed members of the one Body of Christ. If they choose to do that based upon a transactional model (I give when I get what I want), that is a perspective that is more modeled by our culture than by the Good News proclaimed by Jesus in Scripture. Regardless, even those who may be tempted by this worldly model, it is clear that the teaching of the Catholic Church and the carrying out of its norms by a local Bishop cannot be swayed by these considerations.”

Bishop Martin’s views on Liturgy

Finally — and briefly — we come to Bishop Martin’s draft document on diocesan liturgy.

I admit that I disagree with many of the ideas he articulates. For this initial draft, it seems (or at least I hope) that he decided to begin with his entire wish list for the liturgy, likely to be revised and pared down.

For example, in the document, Bishop Martin makes it clear that he thinks the Latin language should be  banned from the normal liturgical life of the diocese. It seems he wants to prevent traditionalist-leaning pastors from imposing Latin collects and antiphons and responses on their congregations, which is commendable. But I also think it’s a good thing for the congregation to sing the Agnus Dei or Sanctus as part of its repertoire.

My own impression is that although I can see an underlying cohesion to his ideas and it’s not necessarily “heterodox” or “modernist,” I think it is likely counterintuitive to many ordinary Catholics’ instincts (including priests) and goes beyond the GIRM or Vatican documents.

That said, if an ordinary Catholic was to visit a parish where these guidelines were followed, they likely wouldn’t notice anything wrong with the Mass or think it was irreverent. In that sense, Bishop Martin is not completely off base. He is directly addressing an ideology and liturgical trends favored by some Catholics (including many young priests) who champion a specific liturgical ideology that is inconsistent with the vision of four of the last five popes.

Looking forward

This controversy is far from finished. On June 4, Bishop Martin announced that implementation of the new TLM restrictions will be postponed until October 2, aligning with the Vatican’s deadline to comply with Traditionis Custodes. He said he granted the extension because it will allow more time to prepare the chapel designated for the Latin Mass community. While this move does not change the ultimate outcome, it reflects Bishop Martin’s willingness to listen to and  accompany his flock, even amid strong and often hostile resistance.

[Note]

[1] In fact, for a bishop like Martin to say that he was impressed by Pope Leo’s “awareness of the dynamics” of the Church in the United States suggests that they were likely in agreement about the issues dividing the American Church.

---

Image: YouTube screenshot. Diocese of Charlotte.