Gay Lynn Schlosser PT, DPT, NCS, C/NDT

The Tennessee bishop recently accused of being hostile to Catholic tradition has just made a rather important statement in its defence. The background makes this considerably more interesting than it first appears. Bishop Mark Beckman of Knoxville, has attracted considerable criticism from traditional Catholics. Last year, he severely restricted the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass in his diocese. More recently, he caused an extraordinary backlash by asking priests to discontinue the customary communal recitation of prayers, including the much-loved Prayer to St Michael, immediately before and after Mass. I confess that I initially found the latter decision particularly difficult to understand. Why discourage such a beautiful and powerful prayer, especially at a time when the Church surely needs St Michael's intercession more than ever? But when I commented on the controversy, Deacon David Oatney @oatney76 of Knoxville provided some useful local context. The custom had been mandated by Beckman's predecessor, Bishop Richard Stika, ostensibly as a response to the clerical sexual abuse crisis. Stika subsequently resigned in 2023, aged just 65, following an apostolic visitation and serious allegations concerning his handling of abuse cases and diocesan administration. Deacon Oatney explained that, for some within the diocese, the prayer had acquired a painful association with that troubled period. He personally loves the St Michael Prayer, but suggested that Beckman's decision might be understood partly as an attempt to move beyond aspects of his predecessor's legacy. That does not establish the bishop's motivation, and I remain unconvinced that discontinuing a perfectly orthodox and beloved devotion is necessarily the best pastoral response. But it demonstrates why local knowledge matters, and why we should be cautious about interpreting every episcopal decision through the prism of the liturgy wars. The diocese has also clarified that Beckman has not prohibited the faithful from praying to St Michael. His concern is with routinely attaching additional communal prayers to the celebration of Mass. Now comes another interesting development. On 2 November, following controversy surrounding an unauthorised ministry associated with the Society of St Pius X, the Diocese of Knoxville published an instruction addressing ecclesiastical communion, tradition and obedience. Among its statements is this particularly important sentence: "Attachment to the Traditional Latin Mass does not itself constitute schism." Coming from a bishop whom some traditional Catholics have come to regard as an opponent of their liturgical inheritance, that is worth noticing. Beckman goes on to explain that Catholics may legitimately express concerns about episcopal decisions and seek their reconsideration, but that liturgical preference cannot justify establishing a parallel ministry in defiance of lawful ecclesiastical authority. I think he is right about that because the traditional liturgy is a treasure of the Church, and Catholics should be free to advocate for its preservation and wider availability. I also believe that some of the restrictions imposed upon faithful traditional communities have been pastorally disastrous, creating alienation where there ought to have been understanding and generosity. But fidelity to Catholic tradition necessarily includes fidelity to the visible communion of the Church. We cannot defend the inheritance handed down to us while treating the authority of the bishops in communion with Peter as something optional. There is, of course, a corresponding responsibility upon bishops. If attachment to the older liturgy is not inherently schismatic, then those who cherish it should not be treated as though they are perpetually suspected of disloyalty. This is what makes Beckman's statement particularly useful. Whatever one's judgement about his liturgical decisions, he has explicitly rejected the suggestion that traditional liturgical attachment is itself evidence of schism. It is possible to disagree with a bishop's pastoral judgement without rejecting his authority. It is equally possible to insist upon ecclesiastical obedience while recognising that bishops sometimes make decisions that are unnecessarily restrictive or pastorally unwise. The recent ordinations of four traditional priests in Fréjus-Toulon offer one encouraging example of how these tensions might be resolved constructively. Knoxville presents a more difficult situation, but the underlying principle is the same. Catholic tradition does not exist in opposition to Catholic communion. Both belong to the same Church, and both deserve to be defended. Perhaps the way forward begins when bishops stop regarding traditional Catholics as a problem, and traditional Catholics stop assuming that every bishop who disappoints them must be an enemy.