Last week, Thomas Reese S.J., prominent Jesuit removed as editor of America at the insistence of the John Paul Vatican, penned a piece for Catholic News on "Why I Hate the Latin Mass." It is framed playfully, ironically as confession, with dialogue between penitent and confessor. He clarifies that he doesn't hate the participants, whom he condescendingly describes as "needing better catechesis." He admits resentment and envy of traditionalist activists who seem to him so effective compared to progressives. This is striking: the rite has been virtually suppressed by Francis and now apparently by Leo, but he and his ilk are the victims of an alleged bully. This brings to mind the insight of Jewish conservative Yuval Levin that in the culture war (he was speaking of American, not Catholic politics) both sides are evenly matched so that neither is able to dominate, but both see themselves as victims, losing the fight, and therefore are threatened and angry.
Reese lays out his values reasonably: the standard stuff including lay participation, shift from temple sacrifice to Passover-type meal, urgent desire for more relevant translations and such. He adds that in the Eucharist we pray with Jesus, to the Father, not to Jesus. (That is another essay: Must it be either/or? When we pray to the Father are we not praying to the Son and the Spirit? Is Reese secretly Arian?) These, except for the last, make sense of course. He sees no value in the recovery of this rite, of the centuries, which he admits valuing in his youth.
I felt an ambivalent honesty in the piece. His ideas are sensible, but his emotion is overblown. He senses the dissonance. He seems to be confessing this, although obscurely and in humor. There seems to be some humility here...but the contrition is less than perfect. It is like the half-apology: "I am sorry, BUT..."
This exaggerated, irrational resentment was shared by Pope Francis. When he suppressed the rite he claimed widespread support from the world's bishops. But investigative reporting by Diane Montana has revealed that the actual episcopal consensus was far more supportive of the practice. We all await eagerly decision from Leo: he is pledged to uphold the legacy of Francis, but he is free of that personal resentment and disposed to stability, continuity, compromise and peace. He is like a young woman with two boy friends: we pray he will be decisive. Unfortunately, indecisiveness seems to be his constitutional weakness.
Is TLM a Threat? What is its Scale?
A recent Pew survey finds 2% of American Catholics attend TLM weekly. This may be an overcount; the actual amount may be closer to 1%. This is not a lot. But the survey also counts those who occasionally attend at 10%. When we recall that only about 20% of Catholics attend Sunday mass weekly and that there is an inordinate amount of young families attending, we see that it is significant in this country. BTW, there are more Latin masses offered in the USA than in the following three countries (France, Italy, Poland) together.
The rationale Francis gave for the suppression was that TLM represents a deeper, schismatic rejection of the Vatican Council and the post-Council hierarchy. That is, of course, precisely the position of the Society of St. Pius X which is now in full, official schism. That would indeed be a serious problem. But that is not the case.
My own information is personal, anecdotal. I am friendly with TLM in Jersey City. They have been financially generous to our Magnificat Home Residence and to the parish. They are well within the boundaries of the Church theologically. I do not doubt that there are noisy, angry voices on the internet who disrespect the Novus Ordo mass and the broader reforms of the Council. But I don't think they are representative. I doubt that Francis personally knew, "listened to," or "synodally accompanied" any TLM folks. I expect Leo to do better on this.
This group advocates for more conservative values, but well within the boundaries of Catholicism. It is not a threat to the theology or unity of the Church. It pales in significance and defiance when compared to the "synodal way" that has gripped almost the entire German Church.
Why not a "live and live" attitude on the part of "liberals?" The TLM folks do their own thing; they pay their own way; they are not imposing their way on anyone else. Why such rage? Such violent repression?
So, we return to the question: "Why this irrational fear of TLM?"
The Anxiety of the Progressive
Resentment and rage flow from a deeper anxiety. So, we ask: "What is threatening Reese, Francis and Catholic progressives?" A deeper question: "What is the defining value of progressives?" Obviously: Progress! The inexorable, salvific, providential efficacy of Progress. What scares the progressive? That progress might stop! Or worse, that it be retracted or reversed! That would be the death of God.
The Church emerged from Vatican II with three clear competitors. A minute, marginal group of traditionalists rejected the Council as a rupture with their idealized, static view of late Tridentine Catholicism. Organic conservatives, John Paul and Benedict, understood the Council as an authentic development, continuous with tradition, and soon took charge of the Church. Progressives, in the so-called "Spirit of Vatican," agreed, with the traditionalists against the conservatives, that the Council was a rupture with the past, understood negatively as ignorant, static, repressive. It represented the triumph of progress over stagnation, the future over the past, the enlightened over the ignorant. They embraced or at least accommodated the Cultural Revolution of the time and retained hegemony over the universities and elite organizations.
Three streams of progressivism exploded and merged violently after 1965. First, scientific-technological-Darwinian evolution (e.g. Chardin) claimed incremental, inexorable victory over ignorance. Second, Marxist-political-dialectic identified the never-ending revolt of the oppressed against the oppressor: worker/capitalist, black/white, woman/man, homo/hetero, Arab/Jew, and trans/cis. Lastly, sexual liberation announced freedom of sexuality, into unhampered joy, with its rupture from fruition, marriage, family and the triumph of technology in reproduction.
That progress, in whatever form, might be stopped or reversed is inconceivable for the progressive; it is an "existential threat!" In lieu of the supernatural or transcendent, trust is in the "arc of history"...whether Marxist, Darwinian or Freudian...as inexorable, invincible, benevolent. Progress..."follow the science," anti-racism, LGBTQ...is the Higher Power. This can, of course, be commingled with a sentimental, diluted piety; but the energy and action is in progress. By analogy, in secular politics, D.J. Trump is such a transformational figure, for both progressives and conservatives, because he singlehandedly, stopped Progress: Dobbs, open borders, DEI, etc. This alone explains the inordinate resentment against TLM of Reese, Francis and the progressives.
Cardinal Sarah's Prediction: Hatred of TLM Will Disappear with "Generation of 1968"
Recklessly, refreshingly candid, Cardinal Sarah clearly renounced the suppression of Pope Francis and called for the retrieval of the tolerance of Benedict. He predicted that this hatred of the TLM will soon disappear as the boomer generation leave the scene.
The "Generation of 1968" (climax of the Cultural Revolution) is best understood as parricidal. In militant feminism it renounced maternity in favor of faux-macho promiscuity, abortion and careerism. But even more defining was rejection of the father. Ingrateful, narcissistic and grandiose, our boomer generation configured itself as better than our fathers. We were educated, smarter, freer. Pampered and spoiled by privilege, prosperity and attention, we ignored the sacrifice, suffering, heroism, humility and perseverance of our mothers and fathers. We critiqued the institutions, renounced patriarchy, disparaged scholasticism, embraced the therapeutic, and celebrated the Sovereign Self. We immersed ourselves in fashionable psychology, cultural critique, political liberalism, sex, drugs, rock and roll. We ridiculed the organization man, the military-industrial complex, populist piety, ethnic racism, and ecclesiastical reactionaries. In oedipal excess, we rejected the discipline, restrain, tradition and legacy of our fathers in favor of sterile sexual license.
And so, hatred of the TLM, canon law, religious habits and the cassock all align with parricide, rejection of the father. Fr. Reese does well to confess, although he may not discern the deeper oedipal roots of his resentment.
Born in 1945, he is technically pre-boomer. His cohort, young priests at the time of the Council, enthusiastically embraced it in all its splendors: ecumenism, liturgy, scripture, role of the laity, respect for the Jews, significance of religious liberty and more. All this sunshine was, however, dimmed by the cloud of filial ingratitude, by an unconscious arrogance, an embrace of the idol of progress.
I know this cohort so well: for my adult life they have been my big brothers in Christ, mentors, confessors, spiritual directors, dear friends and theological adversaries. Maryknollers, Franciscan Friars, diocesans and especially Jesuits. The last are distinguished by erudition, intelligence, sophistication, and charm. They are loyal sons of the Church, but in the rebellious mode of an adolescent male.
Conclusion
Fr. Reese is quoted, many years ago, on TLM: "It is okay for the elderly who lack good catechesis, but children and youth should not be allowed to attend." The condescension and authoritarian intolerance are striking. But today, as we see the zeal of young families for this worship, what stands out is his entrapment within his own progressive bubble, seemingly clueless about what is happening around us. The sadness of "the generation of 68": the failure of filial gratitude and trust leads to the loss of paternity. Many priests now in or approaching retirement do not like or trust younger, conservative priests. This is a heartbreaking rupture. Pope Francis favored progressives as bishops and cardinals, but priests leaving seminaries, even the Jesuit Gregorian in Rome, are overwhelmingly conservative. Liberal prelates are depending upon more traditional priests.
There are very many good signs. Last week (Aug. 25, 2026) I happily read a piece in America on the revival of the cassock by Brother Joseph Hoover S.J. (Ok Mr. Know-it-all: How many Jesuit brothers do you know? And no, this guy is not fixing the plumbing!) He speaks glowingly...in terms of aesthetics, culture, spirituality... of the sight of a young priest in long cassock. Such a piece would have been unthinkable in that journal in the days of Fr. Reese. If a liberal stalwart like America is responsive to the fresh breezes of the Holy Spirit, then our Church is moving in the right direction!
Meanwhile we are stuck with a boomer for President, a boomer for Pope, and octogenarians still clinging to the reins.
This too will pass!
