Charlotte, Knoxville, and the suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass

A tale of two bishops and more

Bishop Michael Martin of Charlotte, NC, followed through on his plan to shut down the four Traditional Latin Masses in his diocese at the beginning of this month. (Phil and I talked about it on this podcast.)

To be honest, since I first learned about Bishop Martin and his stony cold heart, I never thought I’d say this…

… but you have to hand it to him.

He owned it. He’s the bishop, he made up his mind, he wrote to the people. They are upset and angry and rightfully feel betrayed, but their response is directed at him, as it should be, because he took responsibility. He didn’t have someone else carry out his capricious, downright cruel will. He and he alone is the perpetrator.

This past Sunday, the people of Knoxville, Tennessee, heard from their pastor, not their bishop (other than a terse message on the diocesan site), that their long-standing TLM would be taken away from them. The pastor’s sermon was how the news was broken to them, that by the end of the year their beloved (and thriving) parish would no longer have the TLM.

The priest, the Very Rev. J. David Carter, JCL, JV, pastor and rector of The Basilica of Saints Peter and Paul in Chattanooga, made the announcement. He published his statement afterwards. In it, he exhibits two basic postures. One is of a concerned pastor of his flock. The other is, I am sorry to say, of a person frantically exerting moral pressure on that same flock to accept an injustice on the basis of shaky conclusions masquerading as facts, so much so that he appears to be in a sort of hostage situation.

I have read comments from his parishioners that they know Fr. Carter and love him. They trust him. They believe he is acting under obedience and will do his utmost to provide them with as much reverence (and even Latin) as he can.

Some others, including those who are more removed from the situation, are angry with him for going along with the perceived need to be in conformity with Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis’s motu proprio restricting the TLM in parishes, while not failing to maneuver the narrative into a negative one about those who love Tradition.

Fr. Carter says,

Bishop Mark Beckman took up the reins of governance of the Diocese of Knoxville in 2024. Wisely and prudently, he did not want to make major changes in his first year, before he could look, listen, and learn. As you know, I work closely with Bishop Beckman in my Diocesan roles. Many times, he has remarked to me how impressed he is by the Basilica parish, and he acknowledged the great fruitfulness we have, particularly in our liturgy.

He goes on to say,

The bishop received a letter from the Dicastery asking him to respond with his implementation of Traditionis Custodes in the Diocese of Knoxville. Bishop Beckman reiterated that he loves the people that go to the Latin Mass. He does not wish ill on anyone who loves ancient things. But he very publicly professed an oath of fidelity to the Roman pontiff and the laws of the Church, the same as every priest and deacon under Holy Orders. Like the centurion, Bishop Beckman is bound to holy obedience, and so am I.

We are not the masters of the liturgy…

Well, a priest is not master of the liturgy, an observation that highlights the inappropriateness of this statement coming from him — more on that soon.

But it’s not so cut-and-dry for the bishop. The US bishops’ conference (not my favorite institution, but it makes my point) says this:

What is the role of the Diocesan Bishop in relation to promotion of the Sacred Liturgy?
The instruction itself [Redemptionis Sacramentum] recalls how the Diocesan Bishop is “the first steward of the mysteries of God in the particular Church entrusted to him, is the moderator, promoter and guardian of her whole liturgical life.” (RS, no. 19) and quotes from the Code of Canon Law, which directs that it pertains to the Diocesan Bishop (CIC, no. 838 §4) “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound.” (RS, no. 21, citing CIC, no. 838 §4)

So actually, it’s complicated. Many bishops, in fact, have done nothing to implement TC, managing to allow the continued celebration of the TLM in their dioceses even under the current regime of presumed rigidity, holding over from the time of Pope Francis, without any overt instructions from Pope Leo.

But what is the current regime? Are we still in the era of Francis rigidity? The faithful are anxious on this question. If we look at things objectively and without false hope, we perhaps conclude that we are.

This is the list of restrictions occurring since Pope Leo’s election (I understand the ambiguity here; the instructions and expiration of dispensations originate with Pope Francis, yet, we must admit, the hand is the hand of Leo):

• We see the aforementioned Bishop Martin’s lashing out, not only at the thriving TLM parishes but also at the expressions of reverence at Novus Ordo celebrations including those at the Catholic high school;

• the harsh suddenness of Detroit, where Archbishop Edward Weisenburger abruptly fired three venerable and orthodox seminary professors and reduced the TLM from 17 to 4 parishes;

• Monterey, California, where outgoing Bishop Daniel Garcia seemed to have made a rather swift decision to address the “rare situation” of “two rites” and a sudden need for “unity,” in the few months after Pope Leo’s ascension to the papal throne;

• Jefferson City, Missouri, where the Mass is cancelled;

• and of course, now the Knoxville diocese.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that we are amassing a dossier, so to speak, a record of what has happened so far under Leo (in the US and not to mention in other countries). Cardinal Burke has spoken to the Pope; yesterday we learned that Cardinal Sarah has spoken to him; he says only, “He [Pope Leo] must be given some space.”

I don’t know what else to say about that, other than being grateful for these Cardinals.

What’s so striking about Knoxville, though, as I say, is the communication from Fr. Carter.

The bishop clearly felt no need to speak to his people directly. The letter has the earmarks of the conflict arising from this detachment. As is so often the case in such matters, the word “obedience” is bandied about freely.

There is the briefest mention of a letter received from Rome, though without seeing it or knowing any passages from it, one might be excused for wondering if such a letter even exists.

Does that seem like a rash statement? Well, we know that when a letter is received from Rome instructing that pro-abortion politicians not be given Holy Communion, it’s ignored, the sacred duty to obey notwithstanding.

We also know that in at least one case, a pastor was instructed to get word from Rome regarding the TLM celebrations in his parish, did so, did not receive any reply, and was told, by the bishop, to act as if he had received it — that is, to shut the Sunday TLM Mass down. This occurred in Anchorage-Juneau under Archbishop Andrew Bellisario. So pardon us if we don’t take every statement at face value.

Fr. Carter’s letter piles on the reasons for withholding the TLM, mixing the mundane (“what if I’m hit by a bus” — well, fair, and we hope not; one easy solution would be to train other priests to say the Mass, which, if they are as dutiful as Fr. Carter, they will manage) with the grandiose (“I too am a man under obedience” — a Gospel passage that certainly does not have to do with Our Lord refusing to help a believer, and in any case does not apply to the bishop the same way it applies to the priest — the context is, precisely, the order of authority).

But most of all, the letter highlights the contradiction of insistence on strict hierarchical discipline while simultaneously inverting it. The truth is that the parish priest has little freedom and therefore, relatively little responsibility in such matters. I’m not saying he has none, and I don’t think Fr. Carter is right about any of his characterizations of what is going on, if indeed they are his.

The priest just isn’t the one making the decisions.

So, one can only conclude that Bishop Beckman put Fr. Carter up as bag man, and Fr. Carter imprudently went along with this situation. (I would like to remind pastors going forward that you might conclude you must obey, but you don’t have to do the dirty work yourself.)

His letter demonstrates far more zeal for transmitting rationalizations for the bishop’s torment of his parishioners than for demonstrating compassion for the shock and pain he is delivering. It’s like he propagandized himself, if we are to believe those who know him.

He pretends that gilding the Novus Ordo with Latin and chant is a satisfying solution, while admonishing the people about idolizing the old rite. He glides over the inconvenient fact that the bishop is not following Traditionis Custodes to the extent of making provision for a non-parish TLM for those who wish to attend it. (Not that I wish to ascribe to TC any internal coherence, but even those who find it compelling respect this provision.)

He adds the insult of threats to the injury of the blow when he warns of “schism in your hearts” and excommunication!

Why is he playing go-between here? Why does he consent to be the messenger of such awful news without expressing his own honest soul?

The question that should bother Catholics most of all is this:

What kind of bishop asks his priest to take on this role, to assume the appearance of authority he doesn’t have? Bishop Beckman left Fr. Carter exposed to anger that should, in fairness, be directed at himself. There is something so incredibly cowardly about the whole thing. We have to admit that even Bishop Martin did not do this.

Fr. Carter should never have taken on such a task in this manner. The consequence is to highlight the effeminacy of his bishop. Like one of Noah’s sons, he should have merely covered him with a cloak and said nothing.

Epilogue: For a letter to parishioners sent in the breach of the bishop’s dereliction, a bishop who dealt the thrust and then left — for a message that will move you to tears with its genuine care for souls and love for the TLM, and its apologia in conscience that must be respected — read this one from Rev. Dylan Schrader, of the Diocese of Jefferson City. I don’t cry easily, but this one got to me.

In part, Fr. Schrader’s letter reads:

In a nutshell, I would summarize Pope Benedict’s vision as it relates to the Roman Missal and the Second Vatican Council in this way: The Church’s faith after Vatican II must be essentially the same as it was before Vatican II. Vatican II did not change what we fundamentally believe as Catholics.

Therefore, the way we prayed before Vatican II remains a good and important expression of what we believe today. We are not suddenly a different religion from our ancestors, and so what was sacred for them should be sacred for us.

Personally, I am convinced that Pope Benedict’s vision is fundamentally correct. I also think that the healing the Church needs so much will not come quickly. It will require generations, and it will require the recovery of our tradition so that the riches of our liturgical, devotional, and theological heritage again become familiar to people. That is why I also think it is important that the traditional liturgy be readily available to people.

He goes on:

And I am well aware of my own shortcomings, or at least I’m aware of some of them. To be totally honest, it has sometimes been a struggle trying to run my parishes, my school, carry out my jobs for the diocese, and then to celebrate the TLM on top of it. It was sometimes hard to deal with the complaints and resistance from people who were against the TLM or the difficulties within the TLM community itself. I often found myself low on energy and time trying to keep everything going. I never wanted and still do not want the TLM to be dependent on me personally. I would rather that it be readily available and considered a normal part of parish life…

…The first thing I would like to clear up is that the obedience a priest owes his superiors is not just a matter of bad consequences. We must obey not primarily because of what can happen to us if we don’t. It is true that we can be punished in many ways for failing to carry out orders—but that is not the primary concern. After all, we should always be willing to suffer for doing the right thing. And that, in fact, is the primary concern when it comes to priestly obedience—doing the right thing. Obedience is a matter of moral obligation. We must bend our will to the will of our superiors in certain matters. My decision to obey our former bishop’s directive is a choice that I make because I am personally convinced that I must do so in conscience…

At the heart of the question of obedience is a moral obligation rooted in a promise that is itself grounded in Catholic ecclesiology. As Catholics, we treasure our communion with the bishops, who are successors of the apostles. I bear in mind the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch, “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.”

The promise to maintain communion is not only made at ordination. I have made it each time I have been installed as pastor of a parish. My people deserve a priest who keeps his promises. I would be
doing a disservice to you if I were to “set up shop on my own.” That is not the Catholic way…

…I hope that our time here at Westphalia will be something we can look back on as a chapter in a much longer story. I hope that the children who are growing up today or perhaps their children will face fewer challenges within the Church. They will undoubtedly have enough coming at them from the world. One day, perhaps, in God’s providence we will look back and recognize that what we were doing here was crawling so that these children could walk and their children could run.

And above all, I hope that they and all of us grow in holiness, which I am convinced includes a firm desire to maintain communion with the Church. The Church established by our Lord is not an idea or an invisible, spiritual Church. It’s the Catholic Church, made up of sinful human beings but never abandoned by God’s Spirit. Holiness is the only answer. The only real reforms come from the Spirit working through his saints. May God raise up many of them.

Read it all here.

Thanks for reading along with me!

I welcome your comments!

I would love you to subscribe. This content is free!