A response to Hichborn on Ripperger

Why do I even bother?

Crisis Magazine editor Eric Sammons should have waited just a few more days. On Thursday, as I was putting the finishing touches on my latest article about celebrity exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger’s UFO theories and young Earth creationism (“Father Chad Ripperger versus the Little Gray Men”), Crisis published an article (“In Defense of Fr. Ripperger”) that sought to defend Ripperger against an article I wrote back in September, “The Bizarre and Dangerous Views of a Celebrity Exorcist.” (I recommend reading that article if you are unfamiliar with Ripperger and his beliefs.)

After reading Hichborn’s article, I debated whether a response was worthwhile. When I write about Ripperger, my primary audiences are (1) Church leaders and (2) ordinary Catholics who are unaware of Ripperger’s views and may be led astray from the truth of the Catholic faith by him or his followers. My writing is not directed towards Ripperger’s diehard fans. Michael Hichborn is a well-known culture warrior and conspiracy theorist, and he’s made it clear that his worldview is aligned with Ripperger’s fundamentalism. I don’t expect that anything I write could ever change such a person’s mind. I’ll leave that to God (and perhaps some skilled cult deprogrammers).

Hichborn accuses me of “cherry picking.” That was not my intention. I chose to highlight five specific beliefs that Ripperger has clearly articulated, in full context, with links to original sources, which I think any reasonable Catholic would find problematic:

1. The “Five Generals” — his claims about a hierarchy of 5 specific demons, each with a name and each associated with a specific type of sin;

2. His claim that bipolar disorder “is in fact demonic obsession”;

3. His claims about non-Catholic religions, specifically that:

   1. Muslims and Protestants do not worship the same God as Catholics,

   2. Catholics are prohibited from praying with Protestants (and even attending their weddings or funerals);

4. Generational demons and curses; and

5. Certain aspects of his Deliverance Prayers book.

In addition to these five main points, I provided some links and comments about other subjects Fr Ripperger has opined on, several of which Hichborn wrote about. Once again, my intention was to give readers as much information as possible and access to original sources. I have my opinions about Fr. Ripperger, but I want to provide readers with as much information as possible so they can make up their own minds.

I find it extremely frustrating when someone claims to have thoroughly debunked an article I wrote, while not landing a single punch and misrepresenting my arguments. I continue to stand by every word I wrote.

What follows is a list of Hichborn’s claims, each followed by my response. I am not going to meticulously cite my sources again because I already did so in my original article. Hichborn did not mention (and is perhaps unaware) that Ripperger already responded to my article four months ago at some length in a video with traditionalist Ryan Grant. I refer to this interview in my responses as well.

Here we go:

Hichborn: “He even accuses Fr. Ripperger of making statements that are ‘contrary to Catholic Tradition, doctrine, and theology.’ What he offers up as evidence are cherry-picked quotations from various speeches—often leaving off pertinent context—never once supplying any direct evidence to substantiate his very serious charges.”

Mike Lewis: “cherry-picked quotations from various speeches”: This claim is surprising. I went to great lengths to provide as full context as was possible. The article contains (by my count) 34 hyperlinks, the vast majority of which are either links to original sources (his own words) or contain direct quotes.

The original audio of many of Ripperger’s most absurd statements has been taken down, such as when he said, “Sometimes people actually will ask me about Harry Potter. Actually, every time I give a conference, they ask me about Harry Potter. J.K. Rowling went to witch school before she wrote the books.” Fortunately, Catholic Answers transcribed this comment before it was removed, so I linked to their article about it.

I wanted to provide as much context as I could so that readers could make up their own minds, rather than simply take my word for it. Some of the quotes I used were quite lengthy — 3-4 paragraphs — and I provided links to the original sources. This likely made Hichborn’s job easier because he didn’t have to look everything up (like I did).

“never once supplying any direct evidence”: This is an odd claim. Here Hichborn suggests that I never substantiated my assertion that Ripperger’s views contradict Catholic teaching. For example, early in my piece I provided a link to Adam Rasmussen’s article about Ripperger’s erroneous views on the Magisterium. Later on, when addressing Ripperger’s assertions that Catholics are forbidden from praying with non-Catholics and that “If you’re not in the Church any religious thing that you do — like baptize somebody — is actually offensive to God” I provided quotes from Nostra Aetate and other papal documents to substantiate my arguments.

Hichborn: “Mike Lewis took an email written by someone else and attributed its contents and its intentions to Fr. Ripperger.”

ML: This is a reference to this passage in my article: “Following the 2020 election, Marissa Nichols wrote about how members of her Catholic homeschool community were circulating a ‘Prayer of Command’ composed by Fr. Ripperger, who urged that Catholics recite it, asking ‘Jesus Christ to break any curses, hexes, or spells and send them back to where they came from’ in order to ‘Stop the Steal.’” (emphasis added)

Perhaps this sentence could have been broken up a bit for clarity. But this is what Marissa Nichols wrote in her article:

“I was startled to learn that members of our group were sharing a “Prayer of Command” by Fr. Chad Ripperger (whose theology was critiqued by Adam Rasmussen on Monday), along with the recommendation that lay people recite this prayer calling on Jesus to banish evil spirits in an effort to ‘Stop the Steal.’”

This was, in fact, a statement about the members of her group passing along Ripperger’s prayer and recommending that people pray it to “stop the steal.” This is a statement of fact, and doesn’t make assumptions about Ripperger’s intentions.

Hichborn sought Ripperger’s clarification. In his response, Ripperger clarified that someone else sent around the “Prayer of Command” and claimed that Fr. Ripperger had asked for it to be prayed to stop the steal (including prominent blogging priest Fr. John Zuhlsdorf).

That said, Fr. Ripperger apparently wrote another prayer about the outcome of the election. He told Hichborn, “I wrote a separate prayer (attached) which just tells people to say a prayer for the integrity of the election.” This is what Ripperger told Ryan Grant about that prayer (verbatim quote):

And so the original one that I put in the one in 2020 was because of the fact that the witches were publicly saying that they were cursing Trump and some of these other people and some other candidates, actually, um, and so I just put out a prayer that lay people can say asking our Lord to block those and if it's his will to send it back from once it came, that was what I was taught as an exorcist by other exorcists and most exorcists use those particular kinds of prayers. But that all being said, um, then the current one that I put out was just like, look, we're going to have to pray our way out of this situation because it doesn't matter how you dice it.

So it is false that Fr. Ripperger asked that people pray the “Prayer of Command” to stop the steal. It is true that Fr. Ripperger wrote another prayer for the outcome of the election “because of the fact that the witches were publicly saying that they were cursing Trump and some of these other people and some other candidates.”

Glad we set that straight.

Quick Rundown

It seems I’ve gotten much more wordy than I intended to, so going forward I will briefly respond to his claims about my examples of Ripperger’s bizarre views:

Hierarchy of demons:

“Here, Lewis quoted a criticism from Fr. Matthew Schneider, who asserted that Fr. Ripperger is 'making stuff up from nowhere' about the hierarchy of Hell ... what Fr. Ripperger said is indeed a part of the Church’s theological tradition and teaching."

This misses my point. I was not criticizing the notion of a demonic hierarchy altogether. I was criticizing Ripperger's hierarchy specifically. He called the demons in his hierarchy the “five generals.” He gave their names and listed the type of sin each was responsible for (including two kinds of lesbians). That is what Fr Schneider was saying was made up from nowhere.

I did research demonic hierarchies. I could not find these "five generals" listed anywhere. That's why I wrote: "Fr. Ripperger’s teachings on demon hierarchy appear to deviate from traditional views, which often either depict demons as chaotic without a clear hierarchy or align them with the seven deadly sins."

In his response video, Ripperger even admitted that he got the "five generals" from his discussions with exorcists (in other words, not from the tradition). Ripperger said:

"As to the five generals, well, over the course of during, doing exorcisms for 17 years and having discussed various demons with numerous exorcists, there's a general discussion among some of us about the hierarchy in hell, which demons are part of which choir, rank, etc."

Basically he’s admitting that he and/or his exorcist friends came up with it.

Bipolar disorder

“But this is the rest of what Fr. Ripperger said, which Mike Lewis conveniently left off, giving the impression that Fr. Ripperger is claiming that mental illness is only caused by demons..."

Once again Hichborn twists my motives with the words "giving the impression." That was not the impression I was attempting to give. I was very precise in my wording. Fr. Ripperger seems to have a problem with bipolar disorder specifically.

These are both direct quotes from Fr. Ripperger (emphasis added):

"There has not been a single solitary individual who has come to me that’s been diagnosed as bipolar that’s on meds that I haven’t been able to get completely off their meds and straightened out in three months if they do certain things.

Not one. And that is something that tells me — now there has been people that haven’t gotten straightened out, that’s because they didn’t do what I told them to do. But if, and what that’s a sign of is the fact that bipolar is actually a form of obsession, demonic obsession by the time it gets to the point where it’s diagnosable."

and

"Cases of bipolar are in fact cases of demonic obsession. I have always, every time I’ve listened to the explanation or the diagnostic from modern psychologists about a, um, bipolar, I just like, well, send the guy to an exorcist."

I don't know how else to read Ripperger's words. He said he believes every case of bipolar he's come across is "demonic obsession." And not a single defender of Ripperger on this point has attempted to justify these words.

Yet Hichborn twists my words and claims I meant something I didn't say:

"Mike Lewis may be aghast at the suggestion that a psychological disorder could be considered to be a demonic manifestation, it is equally dangerous for Lewis to dismiss the possibility that a demonic manifestation may be masquerading as a psychological illness."

For the record:

I do believe demonic possession/obsession are real and I do believe they can be confused with mental disorders. My concern is Ripperger’s view on bipolar disorder.

That said, in his interview with Ryan Grant, Ripperger did say:

Yeah, I mean, if you actually, okay, first of all, you have to, when I was speaking there, I was speaking very formally, in the sense that, first of all, I never said that all bipolar was demonic. What I said is, anybody who is bipolar can get off if they do certain things which I tell them to do, which we'll see here, I'm the answer to that here as we go along, why that is the actual case.

So I never said all bipolar is demonic.

Is Fr. Ripperger telling the truth? By “speaking very formally” does he mean “ignore what I’m saying”?

He doesn’t say he misspoke. He said he’s never made the claim. Admittedly, he did say that he believes bipolar disorder is demonic obsession when it’s “diagnosable.” But if it’s not diagnosed, how do we know that someone has bipolar disorder?

Make of that what you will.

Praying with non-Catholics

Hichborn writes: “Fr. Ripperger is upholding the pre-Vatican II authoritative teaching of the Church on prayer with non-Catholics, exactly as Pope Paul VI himself instructed bishops and theologians to do at Vatican II.”

This is a bit of sophistry by Hichborn. I know quite well that prior to Vatican II, Church law prohibited Catholics from praying with Protestants. That was never a question. The question is whether Ripperger rejects the teachings of the Catholic Church on other religions beginning with Nostra Aetate and afterwards. Ripperger asserts that Catholics may not pray with Protestants (or even permitted to go to Protestant weddings or funerals). That is not the current teaching or practice of the Church.

Hichborn doesn’t even attempt to argue that Ripperger grants assent to Nostra Aetate or the teachings of Pope St. John Paul II, for example, which are very clear. Hichborn attempts to dodge the question by arguing that Vatican II did not define any dogma. That is also not the issue.

Canon 752 states, “While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”

Ripperger, in his interview with Ryan Grant, tries to minimize the importance of the teachings of the Council, saying:

So basically, with Nostra Aetate, the real question becomes what's its level of theological note, and does it compare to the theological note of the tradition of the past, and what's the correlation? So you can't just say, it's in the Council, therefore it's, it's, it's, that's not necessarily how that works either.

Fr. Ripperger’s point here is unclear. Is he suggesting Catholics should stack the teachings of ecumenical councils against earlier teachings, and toss out the conciliar teachings that aren’t identical to the past? If so, what’s the point of having ecumenical councils or hierarchical authorities at all? Where does this leave room for developments in doctrine or discipline? What if the individual Catholic disagrees with Fr. Ripperger on one of these questions? How is this not private interpretation?

Private interpretation of scripture and tradition is not how the Catholic Church passes down authentic teaching. As the Catechism (citing the Vatican II document Verbum Dei) teaches, “The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him” (CCC 100). Fr. Ripperger has veered far off course on something very fundamental the the Church’s understanding of the deposit of faith. (This is one reason I argued that his views are heterodox and contrary to Catholic tradition.)

Generational Spirits

Hichborn writes:

“While the question of generational curses is a relatively new concept, there is nothing in the notion itself which is counter to philosophy, theology, or Catholic teachings on metaphysics. Relying exclusively on one source to attack Fr. Ripperger’s writings and lectures on generational curses, Lewis merely pits one priest’s writings against another’s on a topic that has no particular doctrine attached to it.”

It seems odd that a “traditional” priest would adopt a “relatively new concept,” particularly one that originated in animism and was introduced to Catholics via Pentecostalism and the charismatic renewal. We have cited two prominent theologians on this issue: Fr. Peter Joseph of Sydney and the Mexican exorcist Fr. Rogelio Alcántara, both of whom have doctorates in theology (something Ripperger does not have). Fr. Joseph is the Censor for his archdiocese and Fr. Alcántara is director of the Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Archdiocese of Mexico.

For the record, unlike Hichborn, Ripperger does not concede that generational spirits is a “new concept.” He told Ryan Grant:

It actually is part of the tradition. There is a layman by the name of Dr. Daniel Schneider. I can see if we can give those links to you. I don't know if we can give those links to you, Ryan, but they are two links. To some interviews that he actually did on the subject. He has thoroughly researched this throughout the course of the Fathers and shown that there is a consistent discussion about this particular topic, in the sense of that the effects of the sins of the parents pass on.

First, he is referring here to “effects of sin,” not to his claims about demons and spirits that pass from generation to generation. Second, there are no “links” that appear in the YouTube video’s description. Where are they?

Finally, in my correspondence with Fr. Peter Joseph, he made the following assertion (and gave me permission to post it):

If “the Fathers” taught about generational spirits, I am happy to be corrected. I have not read every line of every Father of the Church; no one has. If anyone claims that the Fathers teach about generational spirits, then he should name the Fathers and name the specific works and give exact references within those works, so we can verify it for ourselves, and also see the context of any such statements, in case that is relevant.

Perhaps someone can come up with 10 lines on that topic among 5 million lines of the Fathers – but that would not really prove anything, except that it was such a small thing – forgotten, left behind, not considered important, and so almost never quoted (until today!). You need more than 10 lines to show that we must follow this today. Anyone who has read large portions of the Fathers knows they gave all sorts of opinions that have been left behind or discarded by the Church and by Doctors of the Church since then. Some have been explicitly rejected, but many just ignored because regarded as strange or not considered helpful or enlightening. “De-emphasised” is another word for the same!

Not every sentence of the great Saint Augustine has to be followed; sometimes he made mistakes, as anyone can who writes so much. Not every single thing that St Thomas Aquinas wrote was correct. Sometimes, on subtle points, he takes up different positions at different times.

I have read and studied enough theology to know that some people say, “the Fathers (of the Church) taught …” – when it is simply 1 or 2 Fathers, and perhaps only once each. In other words, it is a misleading and exaggerated statement to say, “the Fathers taught” – when it is a tiny minority and, even then, not a major position of those Fathers, but only something said briefly and maybe only once.

Trent and Vatican I teach it is forbidden to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to “the unanimous consent of the Fathers” – which means you cannot re-propose some minority or exotic opinion of one Father or some Fathers as if it were revealed truth or obligatory.

“Generational curses,” etc. – why are they never spoken of in the Summa Theologica ? Why are they not mentioned in that major medieval work, the Sentences of Peter Lombard, or St Thomas’ enormous Commentary on the Sentences ? Where is that topic in the Roman Catechism of 1566, the writings of St Robert Bellarmine, St Teresa of Jesus, St John of the Cross, St Alphonsus Liguori, St John Henry Newman, Fr Garrigou-Lagrange O.P., Fr Antonio Royo Marin O.P., the Papal encyclicals, or the Catechism of the Catholic Church ? Amazing that such an important topic never gets even a mention from major documents and luminaries of the Church!

I will be happy to resume this discussion after Fr. Ripperger provides his sources and substantiates his claims.

Vatican fixes "Monday Holy Day" mess

Cardinal Roche injects some common sense into US liturgical calendar

Back in October, I wrote about the monkey wrench thrown by Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, into the liturgical calendar for the US Catholic Church.

For some reason known only to him, Paprocki took issue with the USCCB’s longstanding practice of waiving the obligation to attend Mass when December 8 falls on a Sunday and the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception is transferred to the following Monday. Several outlets at the time reported that he (serving as chair of the bishops’ committee on canonical affairs) insisted that the USCCB’s Divine Worship committee designate Monday, December 9, 2024, as a holy day of obligation. They apparently weren't having it.

It seems that afterwards, when he didn’t get his way, he then wrote a dubium to the Vatican’s Dicastery for Legislative Texts (DLT). His question, (of course) did not provide key context, such as the fact that the obligation is dispensed in the US when certain holy days fall on Saturday or Monday, or that the longstanding practice in the US was to dispense the faithful when the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception is transferred to December 9.

The dicastery responded with a letter that affirmed Paprocki’s position. Never mind that the US liturgical calendar for the year had long been published. Diocesan websites had long listed the dispensation as well, just as they had in 2013 and 2019 (the two previous years when December 8 fell on a Sunday).

This led to a bit of chaos. Many bishops dispensed their dioceses by invoking Canon 87 from the Church’s Code of Canon law (ironically the same canon Paprocki attempted to use in order to dispense his diocese from complying with Traditionis Custodes). Other bishops upheld the obligation, although at least two (Archbishop Cordileone in San Francisco and Bishop Burbidge in Arlington) dispensed Catholics who attended a Latin Mass on December 8. (Because heaven forbid a traditionalist be obligated to attend even one Novus Ordo Mass!)

Personally speaking, I attended Mass on December 9, even though I was not obliged. I took advantage of Cardinal Gregory’s “Holy Day of Opportunity” and prayed for my mother on the 5th anniversary of her death (which was also on Monday, December 9).

Cardinal Roche puts an end to the confusion

On January 23, 2025, Cardinal Arthur Roche — Prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (DDW) — issued a letter that appears to settle the matter.

Essentially, Cardinal Roche states that Paprocki’s question is not covered in the Code of Canon Law, and that the DDW is the competent curial body for such interventions. He points to the “well-established practice according to which, in the event of the transfer of a holyday of obligation, the obligation to attend Mass is not transferred.”

Key passages:

6. Since this is a liturgical matter and since this issue is not expressly regulated by the CIC, in addition to applying what is laid down in the Normae universales de Anno liturgico et de Calendario, it is necessary to bear in mind the normative interventions that the competent curial body for divine worship and the discipline of the sacraments has adopted over time. These interventions attest to a well-established practice according to which, in the event of the transfer of a holyday of obligation, the obligation to attend Mass is not transferred.

7. Since this practice is not contrary to the canons of the CIC, it is to be considered liturgical law (cf. Canon 2) that in the event of the occasional transfer of a holyday of obligation, the obligation to attend Mass is not transferred to the day ad quem.

Hopefully this ends a strange chapter in which the bishop of a small diocese attempted to impose an extremely pedantic law on the entire US Church.

Here’s the full letter:

The First Principle of Public Policy

How might we summarize a Catholic approach to evaluating proposed laws and policies?

This will be a short one. I’m currently working on a collaboration for Where Peter Is that will provide a much more comprehensive and detailed response to an important question: How should Catholic leaders in politics and policymaking approach their duties? More specifically, what is the fundamental principle that serious Catholics should use to evaluate legislative proposals and government policies?

In light of recent events, I’ve been reflecting on this question. Here’s what I’ve arrived at:

Reverence for the inviolable, intrinsic, and infinite dignity of every person must be the foundation of all public policy.

From this foundation flow other intrinsic principles and values: human fraternity; nonviolence; care for the poor, the sick, the disabled, the elderly, and the marginalized; welcoming the stranger; upholding religious liberty; and defending the dignity of all life, from womb to tomb.

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Let me know what you think.

Holy Days, Catholic guilt, and Italian lawyers

I promise I'm not trying to make up excuses to skip Mass...

I just noticed a letter posted on X from Archbishop Filippo Iannone, Prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Legislative Texts, addressed to Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, the chairman of the USCCB’s Canonical Affairs Committee. The letter addresses the question of whether the faithful have an obligation to go to Mass when the date of a Holy Day of Obligation changes and the feast is moved from Sunday to Monday.

According to the letter, Paprocki asked the dicastery, “If a Holy Day of Obligation in the Advent, Lent or Easter season falls on a Sunday and the Solemnity is transferred to Monday, does the obligation to attend Mass still apply?”

Where’s this coming from?

It seems strange that Paprocki asks this question so broadly, because in the United States (that I can think of, anyway) the only case when this question ever applies is the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, which normally falls on December 8. When December 8 falls on the Second Sunday of Advent (as it does this year), the feast of the Immaculate Conception is transferred to Monday, December 9, but typically the obligation to attend Mass is abrogated.

For example the Archdiocese of Boston’s list of holy days for the calendar year 2024 says (emphasis added), “December 9, 2024 (Moved from Sunday, Dec. 8, 2024; Mass obligation abrogated) – The Feast of the Immaculate Conception.”

Now, I’m not writing this in order to wriggle my way out of going to Mass on December 9. I’d planned to go anyway. The last time the feast of the Immaculate Conception fell on Monday, December 9, was in 2019. I remember because that was the day my mother died. This date, therefore, is very meaningful to me.

Why ask Rome?

The reason why I’m writing about this is because the Vatican’s reasoning does not appear to take into account the rules decreed by the USCCB back in the early 1990s.

Archbishop Iannone’s letter to Bishop Paprocki says (emphasis added):

We will only give a few clarifications below since the canonical norms relating to the subject are clear. As a matter of fact, can. 1246, § 1, establishes the feasts that must be observed as days of obligation. The canon does not provide for exceptions. For those reasons, those feasts are always days of obligation, and so, even when the aforementioned transfer of the feast occurs. Therefore, in that year, the feast must be observed as a day of obligation on the day to which it is transferred. … It is in this sense that n. 2181 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states that the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastors (for a just cause)

It may be true that “The canon does not provide for exceptions.” But for over three decades, the US bishops have provided for exceptions (with Vatican approval) regarding three holy days of obligation. In December 1991 the NCCB (which later became the USCCB) made a decree concerning holy days of obligation. It was approved by the Vatican in 1992 in conformity with canon 1246. It went into effect on January 1, 1993. Regarding these exceptions, the decree states:

Whenever January 1, the solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, or August 15, the solemnity of the Assumption, or November 1, the solemnity of All Saints, falls on a Saturday or on a Monday, the precept to attend Mass is abrogated.

It seems likely that when the prefect wrote “those feasts are always days of obligation” in his response, he failed to consider the (admittedly complicated) norms in the US. According to the rules set by the US Bishops, when certain holy days fall on certain days of the week, they are not always holy days of obligation.¹

It seems odd that Bishop Paprocki would ask Rome’s Dicastery for Legislative Texts this question, given the unusual norms in effect in the US. If this was a question requiring a solution for the entire US Church, why not deal with it in the same way it was handled in the early 1990s — by drafting a proposal, seeking the agreement of the body of bishops, and then sending it to the Vatican for approval according to Canon 1246. §2.²

The inevitable fallout

Archbishop Iannone signs off his letter with the words, “With the hope that this response may be useful.” Unfortunately the good archbishop, who is Italian, likely didn’t account for the uniquely American form of religious scrupulosity and Catholic guilt that leads countless among us every week to worry about whether we’ve committed a mortal sin because we received Communion only 58 minutes after swallowing the last of our Cheerios.

In his letter, Archbishop Iannone does mention, “The situation in which a grave cause renders it impossible to attend Holy Mass.” But that could make it even worse. Many of us read “grave cause” as, “I have open heart surgery scheduled for Monday and if I try to squeeze in the 6:00 am Mass at St. Dymphna’s on the other side of town I won’t be able to get to the hospital in time to be intubated.” And some of us only consider getting to church as “impossible” if we made a good faith effort to drive to Mass during an ice storm and didn’t survive the trip. (It’s more of a past-tense thing.)

Irish Solution

I wondered about how other countries handle this sort of thing. I asked a friend from England, and he said he thinks all the holy days were relegated to Sunday there. The feast of the Immaculate Conception can’t move to Sunday because it’s always in Advent, so there is no obligation to go to Mass for that Solemnity.

I spoke with an Irish friend about what happens in his country when March 17 falls on a Sunday. The feast day of their country’s patron, St. Patrick, always happens during Lent and is a holy day of obligation there. He said he wasn’t sure, so he pulled out his copy of The Liturgical Calendar for Ireland 2024.³

It turns out that in Ireland, when St. Patrick’s Day falls on a Sunday (with the exception of 2008, when it fell on Palm Sunday), it is celebrated on Sunday. The book explains:

There are clear and general rules when feasts occur on the Sundays of Lent. The Sundays of Lent, have precedence over Solemnities. Sunday is the primordial feast and the Solemnity is transferred to Monday or the next free day However an indult granted by the Holy See allows the Mass of St Patrick to be celebrated on a Sunday of Lent. This happened in 1974 when 17 March was the Third Sunday of Lent. It has occurred on another six occasions and again this year. Thus:

17 March 2024 as the Fifth Sunday of Lent/Solemnity of St Patrick, the Mass of St Patrick is celebrated, as in the Roman Missal, pp. 727-30, including the "Glory to God in the highest”.

The indult of 1974 asked for the retention of aspects of the Sunday of Lent. Thus:

the Readings for the Sunday should be used, as in the Lectionary, vol. 1, pp. 310-12, including the Lenten Gospel Acclamation.

In other words, “We’re Irish, dagnabbit, and nothing — not even Lent — can stop us from honoring the great St. Patrick.”

This is the kind of creative leadership the US Church needs. We need to better embrace the both/ands of our faith. Why the need for such a myopic focus on the Second Sunday of Advent anyway? It’s a stressful time of year, and it’s not as if the vestments and candles are a special color like the third Sunday. Why not spend it wrapped in the mantle of Our Blessed Mother?

In the US, we’re still trying to solve the eternal riddle: “If Christmas Eve falls on a Sunday and Christmas falls on a Monday, if I go to Mass on Sunday evening, does it count for both???”

Bishops, trolls, and bishoptrolls

Thanks to Bishop Paprocki’s dubia and Archbishop Iannone’s response, I can already imagine the chaos that will ensue over this in the first week of December on Catholic X and Facebook. I can only imagine the confession lines the following Saturday, filled with Catholics feeling guilty for accidentally committing a mortal sin⁴ earlier in the week.

Another friend of mine, a non-Italian living in Rome, once tried — by way of analogy — to illustrate the difference between the way Italians approach rules and the way Anglophones understand them. I’ve fleshed the analogy out a bit:

A grassy plot of land in the middle of an Italian city has a sign that says, “Keep off the grass.” A security guard stands near the sign, looking very grim and serious.

"Please Keep Off the Grass" (CC BY 2.0) by Editor B

An American approaches him, explaining that he is late for a meeting and urgently needs to go to the building on the other side of the grass. He asks the guard if it would be possible to make an exception, just this once, because it’s an emergency. The security guard says no, there are no exceptions to the rule.

Frustrated and growing visibly nervous — but trying to remain as courteous as possible — the American asks the guard if he knows how long the sign will be up, and when it might be possible to walk across the grass. The guard shrugs his shoulders and says he does not know, but that the he is free to call the company responsible for the sign and ask. But, no, the guard doesn’t have their phone number.

Still desperate for permission to cross the grass, the American then asks the guard if there is perhaps a weekly schedule or online calendar listing times when crossing the grass is allowed, maybe after hours or when there is less foot traffic.

The guard doesn’t answer this time, however. Instead he has broken into a broad smile and is waving, shouting “Buongiorno” to a fellow Italian who has begun to walk across the grass — the twentieth Italian to do so since the conversation began.

I can only imagine what may have prompted Bishop Paprocki to write to Rome for an answer to a question that clearly could have been handled better at the national (if not diocesan) level. Did he just want to turn screws tighter? He didn’t seem so interested in directives from the Vatican on the implementation of Traditionis Custodes.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter to me. Like I said, I was planning to go to Mass anyway, to pray for my mom and to venerate Our Lady along with the four or five other parishioners who happen to get the memo. But I’m beginning to think maybe I should go twice, just to make sure I don’t accidentally commit a mortal sin.

Thank you, Bishop Paprocki.

1. It’s possible that my terminology is technically imprecise, and I should have written something like “on such solemnities, the precept requiring participation in the Holy Liturgy is rendered null” or whatever, but you get the point.

2. CIC 1246 §2 “However, the Episcopal Conference may, with the prior approval of the Apostolic See, suppress certain holydays of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday.”

3. The Liturgical Calendar for Ireland 2024. Veritas Publications, 2023.

4. Yes, I know it is impossible to “accidentally” commit a mortal sin. Many Catholics don’t know that, however. Additionally, it is well known that many Catholics who suffer with scrupulosity live in constant worry that they have committed mortal sin and are not in a state of grace. This letter will exacerbate their fears.

Get behind me, Satan

Ripperger, Chaput, Maier, Strickland, Fournier, and the evil one

Disclaimer: This post is a bit more raw than usual and completely unsuitable for a respectable website like Where Peter Is. I apologize if it rubs anyone the wrong way. The real moral of the story is that I should refrain from listening to exorcists talking about demons for a long while.

Admittedly, I am still searching for spiritual equilibrium after writing an exposé of some of the more outrageous ideas peddled by celebrity exorcist Chad Ripperger over at Where Peter Is — a grueling process that involved listening to well over 100 hours of the priest drone on and on about the preternatural and demons.

Surely that can’t be healthy way to have spent my time, especially since Ripperger is a heterodox and superstitious ideologue. This man’s ideas have harmed many people, but he nevertheless has a huge audience and a fanbase that takes everything he says as wise and impeccable.

The trolls have come around to tell me that I am a potato head and a heretical dummy; especially when compared to Ripperger, who one fan described as “a theological behemoth.” When the attacks are against me, I take that as a sign that they can’t offer a reasonable response to what I’ve written, so they are forced to resort to personal insults.

Of course, Ripperger’s fans weren’t my intended audience — my hope is that my transcription of some of his most dangerous statements will be brought to the attention of ecclesiastical authorities who can put a stop to his harmful “ministry.” My secondary audience was Catholics of reasonable intelligence and good will who are curious to learn the “other side of the story” on the much-lauded Ripperger.

I worked on that article for over two weeks and I have shared with several friends that the last four or five days felt like spiritual warfare. Even though it was mostly written, the transcriptions were done, and the audio links were collected, I somehow could not make heads or tails of which transcript and which link and which chunk of text belonged where. Day after day I tried to wrap up the article but I kept getting confused.

On the final night, I decided to put it all in the Virgin Mary’s hands and it all became much clearer as I pushed through.

After all these years, I still struggle to understand the persistence of the traditionalist worldview—perhaps it could be called "traditude."

What drives this animosity — not only against the pope but towards anything in the Church that fosters joy or optimism or trust that God’s will has played any sort of meaningful role in the reforms of the Church in the past 60+ years?

Is it a result of poor formation or the overly combative nature of apologetics culture that prizes argument over understanding? Could it be the allure of seeing oneself as a rebel, standing bravely against the tides of modernism? Or is it simply poor reading comprehension? Perhaps it’s rooted in a sense of superiority or a need for control.

This brings me to figures like Archbishop Charles Chaput, who, in recent years, seems intent on cementing his legacy as an ideological opponent of the pope. At least Fr. Ripperger has a large fawning audience that eats up anything he happens to ramble on about.

The continued antagonism of Chaput, however, feels not only dishonest but out of touch and unnecessary. What a shame for someone who once commanded significant respect within the Church to become little more than a cantankerous grouch.

His most recent article in First Things is a masterwork of passive-aggression against the Roman Pontiff. Who imagined that he would spend his last years playing the role of Debbie Downer in the Church?

Even more sensational than Chaput is the beyond-absurd Bishop Joseph Strickland, whose latest “pastoral letter” could have been written by the sedevacantist Dimond brothers, so paranoid and apocalyptic is its tone. Honestly this is virtually indistinguishable from Vigano’s ideology (but it’s eminently more readable).

Of course everyone knows that Strickland doesn’t write his own material. The consensus is that Deacon Keith Fournier is the brains behind the Strickland operation, and perhaps the person most responsible (besides Strickland, of course) for the Texas bishop’s ouster from the See of Tyler and descent into heresy and schism.

Chaput has his own right-hand-man-slash-ghostwriter, Fran Maier, who has recently come into his own as one of the more petulant critics of the Holy Father out there.

These men are making the devil’s job easy. As people who have spent their entire adult lives in important roles in the Church, they should know better.

The reality is that Pope Francis has consistently led and taught the Church with a message that is both compassionate and deeply rooted in the Gospel. His teachings resonate with the spirit of Christ in ways that often seem far more relevant, wise, and faithful than the spiteful, arrogant voices of those who oppose him.

The contrast is stark: on the one hand, we have a pope who emphasizes mercy, inclusion, and care for the marginalized; on the other, we see a faction clinging to their preconceived notions of Catholicism. All they can do is distract and mislead the faithful and they seem content to do so.

As these critics dig in their heels, they only further isolate themselves from the Body of Christ and they make the devil’s work easier.

Pope Francis continues to lead the people of God with the heart of a true pastor, while Ripperger continues his grift without guardrails and while stale and rigid churchmen seem to miss the point entirely. Their loss, I suppose.