Nineteen Years and Heartsick

Today, June 29 2026, is the nineteenth anniversary of this blog, which I launched on June 29, 2007 when I was only 27 years old and working as a lowly DRE in a rural parish in southeastern Michigan. As always, I am grateful for all the support and patronage over the years. I had no idea when I created a blogger account and started banging away at my desk back in 07 that I'd still be here today—and not only still here, but going strong as ever! Indeed, I still have so many ideas for future blog posts and essays on the sister site that I often despair of ever finding time to get it all out.

I founded this blog deliberately on June 29, the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul, to signify fidelity to the Chair of St. Peter. I also chose the moniker "Boniface," not after St. Boniface, but rather after Pope Boniface VIII (r. 1294-1303), whose bull Unam Sanctam (from which this blog is named), had famously declared that "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." The bull was issued in response to King Philip the Fair of France, who had imposed heavy taxes on the Church in his realm against an explicit papal prohibition. The king's appealed to his status as anointed monarch over the realm of France, arguing that this exempted him from the pope's directives. To this Boniface insisted that no one could exempt themselves from the pope's authority; indeed, "every human creature" must be subject to the Roman pontiff, from the lowliest peasant to the mightiest king.

Today we are but days away from an event that will likely split the Traditional world for years to come, causing untold spiritual harm, confusion, acrimony, and inaugurate flood of tiresome online diatribe that will last years to come. I grieve the disunity that will inevitably come. It feels like it is January of 1861 and we are all enjoying our final ballroom dance before we muster to our respective sides, some to the North, some to the South, some to glory.

Many people have asked my opinion on the upcoming consecrations; if you are interested in my thoughts, they can be found in my piece "Forty Theses on the SSPX" (USC, Mar. 19, 2026).

Beyond that all I can say is this: I am absolutely heartsick about this situation.

I am heartsick that Traditiones custodes is still on the books and is functionally herding Trads into the SSPX.

I am heartsick that the coming consecrations will undoubtedly undo all the progress towards reconciliation that has been made since Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications in 2009.

I am heartsick at the echo-chambered vitriol coming from both sides, neither of whom can see the plank in their own eye.

I am heartsick that this will almost certainly fuel the pompous jeering of the addle-brained autistic Sedes. The OrthoBros are rejoicing in our dissension; even Old Catholics are making fun of us right now. 

I am heartsick that with the spiritual lives of over half a million Catholics in the balance, Pope Leo couldn't be bothered to talk about the liturgy at the June Consistory.

I am heartsick that it seems plain to me that the SSPX doesn't even want reconciliation; to the degree they do, it is because they think Rome needs to reconcile with them.

I am heartsick that many will simply lose faith altogether, I am sure of it. These sorts of things ruin people.

Most of all, I am heartsick because none of this needed to happen. Witnessing the drama over the Latin Mass unfolding from Traditiones custodes to the July consecrations feels like watching the outbreak of World War I: a series of dumb, catastrophic, and entirely preventable missteps by every major actor, each one driving the situation further towards crisis, each entrenching themselves further in their positions, until we are all immersed in a tragic conflagration that could have absolutely been avoided had numerous people over the years just swallowed their pride and pulled their heads out of their asses.

There are some Trad commentators in the pro-SSPX camp who adopting a celebratory, almost triumphalist tone about this, as if this is the SSPX's grand moment of victory. This I cannot comprehend! I cannot view these consecrations as anything but a tragedy of unfathomable proportions. Regardless of what side of the issue you come down on, surely it must be recognized that this is a deep wound in the unity of the Church that will yield a bitter harvest of spiritual damage that will probably last for decades.

As for me, I believe that union with the Church matters—not union with some ecclesiological abstraction, but the Church as it actually exists in the world here and now, as represented by the pope and the bishops; I believe union with Rome matters—not an appeal to some goofy "eternal Rome," but to the actual Rome we all have to deal with, filthy though it be; I believe that submission to the Pope matters—not to a hypothetical papacy, but to the actual Roman Pontiff, Robert Prevost, and his particular judgments. Yes, we all know obedience isn't absolute. Yes, we all know it isn't blind. Yes, we all know there are exceptions blah blah blah. Even so, I am not and have never been convinced that such exceptions apply to the SSPX, and I have never nor do I now think the SSPX is integral to the survival of the Latin Mass.

I do not in any way exempt Rome from blame in this matter; had it not been for the unjust persecution of the Traditional Latin Mass that continues to our own day, the SSPX would probably not even be a thing. And let's not beat around the bush—Rome is incompetent in a great many things and has failed the faithful miserably again and again. But if there is one thing Rome is competent to adjudicate is who is or is not subject to ecclesiastical penalties. If Rome says the SSPX bishops are excommunicated, I will hold them excommunicate (as every Catholic is bound to observe ecclesiastical penalties in the external forum, even if they believe them to be unjust); if Rome says plainly there is a schism (and I stress plainly, not "only after an army of neck-beard YouTubers have finessed it"), then I will hold them in schism.

Yes, Rome is hypocritical to not apply the law equally to, for instance, the German bishops, or the Chinese. Hypocritical as it is, the uneven application of the law is not argument against adherence to it; and, as far as I can tell, Rome has always been guilty of applying its laws unevenly. You think this is new? It's not. The examples are legion. One reason why Philip the Fair got into the squabble with Boniface VIII was because of the uneven application of the law. Boniface VIII proved more willing to accommodate Edward I's pressure on the English clergy than he did Philip IV's financial measures, and his conflict with Philip escalated into open confrontation in a way his dispute with Edward never did. One reason Henry VIII was so intransigent with Clement VII was because Rome had annulled the marriages of other monarchs in the exact same situation as Henry, but refused this boon to England's king. (1) When it came to chattel slavery in the 1450s, Rome explicitly granted license for Portugal's sub-saharan slave trade while withholding the same to Spain, due to the better diplomatic relationship Portugal had cultivated with the papacy. (2) Cardinal Richelieu accumulated bishoprics and abbacies in a manner that straightforwardly violated canon law on pluralism; holding multiple benefices simultaneously was repeatedly condemned by reform councils including Lateran V and Trent. Yet Rome accommodated him because France was a major power and Richelieu was useful. Meanwhile obscure clergy in less strategically significant positions faced ecclesiastical discipline for the same violations. Throughout the Church's history we frequently see popes making allowances to one party while withholding it from another. Such has always been the way things have been done, like it or not. 

And this is part of what is necessary to understand if we ever want to have peace about the Church—Rome has always operated by a certain realpolitik in its dealings. Like all applications of realpolitik, its applications are seldom perfect and frequently unjust to some parties. But why would we expect any different? The Church, like her Lord, is incarnated. The same Church that has often proved stupid, scheming, and duplicitous is the glorious Bride of Christ and these two realities exist simultaneously. Sometimes it feels like we want to imagine some perfect "eternal Church" that is abstracted from the sloppy reality on the filthy banks of the Tiber. But such would be to undo the Incarnation; even in Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface says that professing oneself a son of the Church while disregarding the pope's authority is a kind of Manichaeism, an unwarranted separation of the spiritual ideal from the dirty physical reality. For so long it seems the Trad response to every unpopular juridical act is, "That's not valid! I don't have to listen to that!" I am as sick of this mentality as I am of the nonsense that occasions it. The Incarnation is beautiful but it is also messy—the God-man is sweaty, goes to the bathroom, and blows His nose. Now obviously the Church has moral failings whereas Christ does not, but I see it as  part of the same reality: the "incarnate" nature of the Church means we must always grapple with the Churc's dual realities as both the Bride of Christ and a human institution with all that entails. For me, keeping faith means embracing the Church with all its messy implications—even when reform is urgently needed and I cannot see a clear way forward. 

I know it's bad; I think the Church is in probably the worst state it's ever been in. Sometimes these days, embracing the Church feels like God is telling you, "Go, take for yourself a wife of harlotry" (Hos. 1:2). But, for me at least, this is a matter of staying with Christ on the cross. I cannot do otherwise.

Am I going to waste space arguing with those who disagree with me on the Society? Certainly not. Brother, you go your way and I will go mine and may God bless us both. I know the situation is confusing, and anyone who acts like it isn't is either dumb or dishonest. But as for me, I can't hold these consecrations as necessary, much less celebrate them. I will continue to hold my SSPX friends in high regard and show them every kindness. But I refuse to go along with this, whatever the pretext. I want the Traditional Mass, God knows I do, but I only want it in, through, with, and under the full canonical communion of the Church—the Church that actually exists as reflected in the pontificate of Pope Leo XIV and the bishops in communion with him, unworthy though they all be. 

*   *   *   *   *  

(1) Louis XII of France got his first marriage dissolved in 1498 on grounds of alleged non-consummation that were widely doubted. Earlier, Henry's own father-in-law Ferdinand of Aragon had benefited from a speedy dispensation for Catherine's remarriage in the first place. The theological and canonical arguments Henry's lawyers assembled were at least as strong as those used in comparable cases, yet the political calculus of the Habsburgs made the same procedure unavailable to an English king.

(2) Nicholas V issued Dum Diversas in 1452 and Romanus Pontifex in 1455, granting Portugal explicit authorization to enslave sub-Saharan Africans and seize their lands. When Spain's colonial enterprise expanded, the papacy brokered the Treaty of Tordesillas and issued Inter Caetera—but the framing shifted toward conversion obligations rather than explicit license for enslavement, partly because Spanish theologians at Salamanca were already raising objections to slavery. The practical outcomes were the same, but Portugal received unambiguous written papal sanction for chattel slavery that Spain never quite got in the same form. The distinction had less to do with the morality of the acts than with which crown had cultivated Vatican relationships more effectively and which had noisier domestic critics.