New York Times has posted the dumbest opinion piece ever

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If this Dasha person went to my church I'd sit as far away from her as I could get. That's all I have to say on this.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Also the only people who ever cared about 'Red Scare' to begin with are the same people who probably greenlight these sorts of pieces (Vanity Fair had one too)

Probably the biggest culture shock I've had about Catholicism is not any of the weird preoccupations that cradle Catholics have, but the fact that other youngish converts so often expect me to know and care about this seemingly endless rogues' gallery of freakish nobodies.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A lot of these converts want the Latin Mass, which Pope Francis is trying to do away with.

There's a great deal to recommend the Latin Mass aesthetically, but the way its advocates respond to criticism or restrictions just keeps reinforcing Francis and his people's perception of them as a church-within-a-church that keeps its own counsel and can't stand being told no. The vast majority of regular Latin Mass attendees that I've known have at the very least developed a schismatic posture towards other aspects of today's papacy sooner or later, even if they didn't have it to begin with. It's a shame, because a lot of the aesthetic criticisms of the way the current Latin Rite tends to be celebrated in this country do have merit, especially if you're not old enough to think of the sixties folk revival as cutting-edge music and polyester poncho chic as cutting-edge men's fashion.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A glorification of the 'old European way' of saying mass doesn't come alone particularly amongst the sorts of people talked about in the OP. The Church's restrictions are quite grounded.

Yes, particularly regarding indigenous issues. You run into black, Asian, and "white Hispanic" trads semi-frequently, but the 2019 Amazon Synod revealed a really intense and ugly undercurrent of anti-Native sentiment in the tradosphere that's only gotten worse with each subsequent stab at indigenous reconciliation from the Vatican. At this point I wouldn't be shocked if Charles Chaput is the only remaining trad-sympathetic Native Catholic in America.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A glorification of the 'old European way' of saying mass doesn't come alone particularly amongst the sorts of people talked about in the OP. The Church's restrictions are quite grounded.

Yes, particularly regarding indigenous issues. You run into black, Asian, and "white Hispanic" trads semi-frequently, but the 2019 Amazon Synod revealed a really intense and ugly undercurrent of anti-Native sentiment in the tradosphere that's only gotten worse with each subsequent stab at indigenous reconciliation from the Vatican. At this point I wouldn't be shocked if Charles Chaput is the only remaining trad-sympathetic Native Catholic in America.

I think what's striking is how people forget that Vatican 2 was in many ways Catholicism's contrition for it's own imperialism, and certainly for it's indirect relationship with inter-war nationalism. There's a lot of focus on the Church and rightfully so, but less on the 'responsibility' of the laity and political Catholics which Vatican 2 was a response to.

The 'issues' views of TLM attendees are shocking. Not just in comparison to other Catholics, but comparable faiths

https://liturgyguy.com/2019/02/24/national-survey-results-what-we-learned-about-latin-mass-attendees/

The demographics are to be expected; disproportionally white, from traditionalist Catholic backgrounds and heavily backfilled by converts.

https://liturgyguy.com/2020/05/26/2019-20-tlm-survey-what-we-learned-about-latin-mass-attending-young-adults/

I know I'm quite hyperbolic and I'm not being kind or gracious but to me it's a fash pit. That the otherwise glacial Church has moved so fast to counter it suggests they at least partially think the same.

"Men are an important barometer of any Liturgical Rite’s attractiveness" is an absolutely shocking sentence, yet somehow also completely unsurprising in this context. At best it's the sort of thing one says out of desperation to attract as many potential future priests as possible; at worst it's straightforwardly and crassly sexist. The "Liturgy Guy" is a real argumentative jerk in the comments on these posts, too.