The Terror of Latin Mass

I am not making this up

Liberals are insistent on the separation of church and state. This has been a staple of liberalism for as long as I’ve been aware of politics. And I’ve always thought that, as stated anyway, the liberals had it right: Government should neither embrace nor oppose religion, and for the most part let people practice their religion as they wish (if the practice involves e.g., human sacrifice, or torturing children to “expel the Devil,” that of course is a different matter.)

The problem, as has sometimes been the case with me until I wised up in my old age, is that I didn’t realize the Left never really meant it. Recently the FBI demonstrated that the government, or Biden’s government, anyway, has lots of interest in religion, and it’s not the Free Exercise kind.

From the website uncoverdc.com, we find this revelation, none of which, it turns out, has been contradicted to any degree by the FBI or the Department of Justice:

The FBI’s Richmond Division would like to protect Virginians from the threat of “white supremacy,” which it believes has found a home within Catholics who prefer the Latin Mass.

Latin Mass. I should have known. The smart kids in my high school — conspirators all — took Latin. I just thought they were showboating while I had my hands full with trigonometry. Little did I know!

An intelligence analyst within the Richmond Field Office of the FBI released in a new finished intelligence product…..on Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists (RMVE) and their interests in “Radical-Traditionalist Catholics” or RTCs. The document assesses with “high confidence” the FBI can mitigate the threat of Radical-Traditionalist Catholics by recruiting sources within the Catholic Church.

Anyone want to guess what the Left’s reaction would be if Trump’s FBI wanted to infiltrate a mosque to recruit sources about radical Islam’s plans? This is not to mention that, unlike Catholicism, radical Islam actually has plans, some of which have resulted in mass murder in the United States and around the world.

The acronym, new to many in the Domestic Counter-terrorism field, comes with a footnote by the writer explaining RTCs are “typically characterized by the rejection of the Second Vatican Council.” The writer makes an unsubstantiated leap that a preference for the Catholic Mass in Latin instead of the vernacular and a number of more traditional views on other world religions can amount to an “adherence to anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ and white supremacist ideology.” This writer draws the important distinction between “traditional Catholics,” who simply prefer the Traditional Latin Mass and pre-Vatican II teachings, and RTCs, who espouse “more extremist ideological beliefs and violent rhetoric.”

You do remember that stuff about government non-involvement in religion, right? And they’re still pushing it, albeit in a different context. In recent years, murderers sentenced to death have insisted on having a clergyman present in the execution chamber, and the clergyman requested has virtually never been Episcopalian or Presbyterian or Methodist of that sort of thing. It’s almost always been from some obscure religion — that is, from a religion not practiced by any of the existing prison chaplains, and therefore one who has to be sought out and brought in from the outside, and security cleared, delaying the execution date (which of course was the point all along). The Supreme Court has largely fallen for this ploy, observing that it can’t be up to the government to make distinctions between one variety of religious belief versus another.

Yes, well, I guess no one asked the Richmond FBI.

A discerning reader may wonder why the writer believes such divisions exist and if there is evidence of the extremist and violent rhetoric within the Catholic church. The analyst’s note doesn’t provide specifics. When the FBI generates an intelligence product, it is important to note the analyzed sources. Typically, strict source vetting removes partisanship and bias, so a product is both consistent with federal law and can add value to the FBI’s overall mission. Of note, this document was reviewed and approved for release by the FBI Richmond Chief Division Counsel, who is the office’s top lawyer.

The attached appendices refer to a number of articles and the out-of-FBI-policy Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) at the end of the document. For example, Appendix D is a direct copy of the SPLC list of “Radical Traditional Catholicism Hate Groups,” including the web address accessed. The SPLC appears to be a source for the intelligence analyst’s beliefs that RTCs exist and that they are anti-Semitic.

So the FBI is outsourcing its “which-religion-is-acceptable” research — research that under the First Amendment it has no business doing to begin with — to the crackpots at the far Left Southern Poverty Law Center.

When the FBI’s memo became public courtesy of a whistleblower, headquarters scrambled to issue a damage control statement. National Review describes it:

“While our standard practice is to not comment on specific intelligence products, this particular field office product – disseminated only within the FBI – regarding racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism does not meet the exacting standards of the FBI,” the bureau said in a statement to National Review. “Upon learning of the document, FBI Headquarters quickly began taking action to remove the document from FBI systems and conduct a review of the basis for the document. ”

The statement itself is mind-blowing. “[D]oes not meet the exacting standards of the FBI”??? How about: “Is an unacceptable intrusion into, and aspersion upon, the religious beliefs of millions of Americans, and is an intolerable infringement of the values the Framers enshrined in the First Amendment.” And what does the FBI, of all organizations, think it is doing by erasing the evidence? When the defendants I dealt with did that, they got an extra count in the indictment. The honest thing to do is leave the memo exactly where it is, and follow it with an unambiguous disclaimer like the one I just wrote for them.

Fortunately, the hard-working Attorney General of Virginia, Jason Miyares, who was swept into office 16 months ago with Gov. Glenn Youngkin, found out about the FBI’s stunt, gathered up 19 other state attorneys general, and demanded an explanation from Merrick Garland. Miyares’ letter is here. It shouldn’t and it doesn’t leave a lot to the imagination (footnotes omitted):

The memorandum deploys alarmingly detailed theological distinctions to distinguish between the Catholics whom the FBI deems acceptable, and those it does not. Among those beliefs which distinguish the bad Catholic from the good ones are a preference for “the Traditional Latin Mass and pre-Vatican II teachings,”and adherence to traditional Catholic teachings on sex and marriage (which the memorandum glibly describes as “anti-LGBTQ”). The memorandum even appears to accuse the Supreme Court and the Governor of Virginia of “[c]atalyzing” the bad Catholics through “legislation or judicial decisions in areas such as abortion rights, immigration, affirmative action, and LGBTQ protections,” singling out the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and Governor Youngkin’s support for sensible abortion regulations as examples.

As Attorney General Miyares notes, the FBI memo is not only law enforcement’s religious critique (repeat that phrase to yourself); it’s openly and aggressively political.

Remember all those outraged attacks on J. Edgar Hoover as a tool of the Right?

After defining which Catholics are the dangerous ones, the memorandum proposes dealing with those Catholics through “the development of sources with access,” including in “places of worship.” In other words, the memorandum proposes recruiting Catholics to enter a sacred house of worship, talk to their fellow Catholics, and report those conversations back to the FBI so that the federal government can keep tabs on the bad Catholics. To allocate these “sources,” the document includes an appendix with a list of Catholic “hate groups” that was assembled by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), apparently without any independent vetting from the FBI.

The letter adds some additional items I found especially noteworthy — items Ringside has written about more than once and will continue to emphasize (footnotes omitted):

First, it is part of a dangerous tendency in the FBI and DOJ to label those who hold views contrary to the Administration as violent extremists or terrorists. In October 2021, Attorney General Garland directed the FBI to “address[] threats” to school boards and administrators posed by parents and guardians protesting school board meetings, labeling those protests as “run[ning] counter to our nation’s core values.” The weaponization of the DOJ and FBI to suppress political and religious views inconsistent with the Administration’s orthodoxy is an alarming trend that must be immediately curtailed.

Second, spying on Catholics in their churches and cathedrals is an absurd use of federal law-enforcement and counterintelligence resources. Every day, lethal amounts of fentanyl cross the southwestern land border unimpeded. The Russian government successfully hacked software used by federal agencies and conducted an unprecedented espionage operation against the United States. And a Chinese spy balloon recently crossed the entire continental expanse of the United States unmolested. The Administration should focus its resources on addressing these real and ongoing threats to Americans, rather than labeling traditional Catholics as violent extremists and recruiting “sources” to spy on them.

Jason Miyares has his hands full, what with various pro-criminal Commonwealth’s Attorneys to try to clean up after — notably Steve Descano, currently doing what he can to coddle criminals in Fairfax County — and deserves hardy congratulations for writing this letter. If Mr. Garland bothers to respond, I’ll report on it forthwith. I do not advise holding your breath.