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.