No Rails, Rainbow Altars, and Team Jerseys: The New Religion of the Conciliar Church
From St. Patrick’s Cathedral to Milan, Paris, Washington, and Madrid, sacred things are lowered for the world while reverence is treated as the problem.
St. Patrick’s Cathedral and the Knicks Jersey
New York’s new archbishop, Ronald Hicks, held up a No. 11 Knicks jersey during Sunday Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral after the Knicks’ championship victory. The number had a symbolic value: Hicks is the eleventh Archbishop of New York.
Modern Catholicism has become addicted to the little symbolic lowering. Just one more little gesture showing that the sanctuary can host local fandom, cultural celebration, sentimental community-building, or public relations.
The deeper issue goes beyond the jersey, it is the instinct.
A Catholic cathedral is not a civic auditorium and the Mass is not a community pep rally that happens to include consecration. It is the unbloody re-presentation of Calvary. The bishop’s task is not to make the altar relatable, but to make men remember that God is holy.
When the shepherd uses the sacred moment to display a sports jersey, he may think he is humanizing the Church. But the danger is that he is secularizing the sacred. And once that habit takes hold, the line between “harmless cultural reference” and “the sanctuary as stage” becomes very thin.
Milan: The Sacred Heart Turned Into a Rainbow Backdrop
The Milan incident is of a far more serious order.
Archbishop Mario Delpini reportedly presided over a Mass organized by Gruppo del Guado, an LGBT Catholic association, at the Church of San Carlo al Lazzaretto. The event was promoted with rainbow imagery and took place in the context of Pride-related activity. During Communion, a participant reportedly wore a T-shirt depicting Jesus in rainbow colors with the words “Ah Men” above Him — a pun turning the sacred “Amen” into a sexualized wink.
The scandal is that sin increasingly enters the church not asking to be healed, but asking to be affirmed. And the postconciliar hierarchy, instead of saying, “Come and be converted,” often says, “Come and be celebrated.”
The “Ah Men” shirt is especially revealing. At the moment of Communion, the communicant’s “Amen” is supposed to be an act of faith: yes, I believe this is the Body of Christ. In that context, “Ah Men” is not a joke. It is an anti-Amen. It takes the word by which the faithful confess the Real Presence and bends it into erotic self-reference.
The defenders of these events will say, as they always do, that the Church must welcome everyone. But Catholic welcome is not the same thing as ideological validation. The father welcomes the prodigal son home; he does not throw a banquet to celebrate the pigsty.
The Italian commentary speculated that perhaps Church authorities are being blackmailed by powerful internal networks. That may or may not be true in any particular case. But the more frightening possibility is that no blackmail is needed anymore.
What if the system has already internalized the threat?
What if the postconciliar hierarchy has been trained so thoroughly to fear the accusation of “exclusion” that it now anticipates the demands of the sexual revolution before the revolution even has to make them?
That would be worse than blackmail. Blackmail requires an outside coercer. This would mean the coercer has already moved inside the ecclesiastical imagination.
Paris: When the Church Becomes a Municipal Exhibition Hall
Paris: When a Consecrated Church Becomes a Profane Playground
During Nuit Blanche on June 6–7, Parisian churches and chapels were conscripted into a municipal nocturnal festival directed by Barbara Butch, the LGBT activist and DJ whose name was already radioactive among Catholics after the Paris Olympics opening ceremony scandal. The city sold the whole thing as a “celebration of love,” an inclusive artistic night of music, participation, and contemporary expression. But the result, in Catholic terms, was brutally simple: consecrated places were treated as raw material for secular experimentation.
At Saint-Laurent, one of the central flashpoints, the installation Sous la peau du ciel invited people to submit wishes, longings, and sentimental fragments, which were then transformed into an ambient sound environment. This was the religion of subjective feeling piped through speakers and dispersed through a Catholic church.
And it was reportedly not confined to some harmless corner near the entrance. Reports described voices and sounds distributed through side chapels, near altars, around the baptistery, and even inside confessionals. Think about that. The confessional, the tribunal of mercy, the place where souls accuse themselves before God and receive sacramental absolution, reduced to an acoustic prop in an immersive art project.
That alone should have brought an immediate public condemnation from the Archbishop of Paris.
But Saint-Laurent was not the only outrage. At the Tenon Hospital chapel, another installation, Jungle haletante, reportedly involved masks and objects inspired by voodoo imagery, accompanied by whispers, breaths, creaks, and metallic sounds. Social-media reports and circulated images from the controversy also described grotesque skeletal humanoid figures, including one figure that appeared to be posed in a masturbatory gesture.
That is pagan, eroticized, occult-adjacent desecration under the cover of municipal culture.
And even if one were to debate every image, every angle, every artist’s intention, the fundamental fact remains: Catholic churches were made available for experiences with no intrinsic relationship to worship, piety, doctrine, penance, the Eucharist, or the salvation of souls. The burden of proof is not on Catholics to explain why this is offensive. The burden is on the clergy who allowed it to explain when they stopped believing that churches are holy.
The most revealing part of the story is that Catholics who came to pray in reparation were reportedly treated as the problem. Six Catholics were taken into police custody after protesting at Saint-Laurent. The faithful who objected to profanation were handled as extremists. The installation went forward under protection. That is the post-Christian West in one image: police for the art installation, handcuffs for the rosary.
Bishop Emeritus Dominique Rey issued a statement condemning the practice. He said the Church cannot be the receptacle for events foreign to the spiritual identity and sacred purpose of churches, chapels, oratories, and shrines. That is not a radical claim. That is Catholicism 101. And yet in the present crisis, Catholicism 101 now sounds like resistance literature.
The deeper scandal is not that secular artists do not understand the sacred. Why would they? The deeper scandal is that churchmen apparently no longer know how to defend it.
A church is not a publicly owned “heritage venue” that the clergy happens to borrow on Sundays. It is the house of God.
Once the sacred is redefined as “community space,” every profanation becomes negotiable. And once bishops start thinking like cultural managers instead of successors of the Apostles, they will always find a reason to accommodate the next sacrilege.
The conservative Catholic asks: “Was this appropriate?”
The traditional Catholic asks the still more terrible question: “What kind of hierarchy repeatedly recognizes the enemies of the sacred as partners, while treating the defenders of the sacred as an embarrassment?”
Because that is the pattern. The profaner is accompanied. The protester is pathologized. The artist is interpreted generously. The Catholic praying in reparation is suspected of extremism. The sanctuary is available to the city, but not to tradition. The world is welcomed in with its idols, its sexuality, its occult atmospherics, its therapeutic slogans, and its blasphemous ambiguities; while the faithful are told to calm down.
No. They should not calm down.
They should remember what a church is. They should remember what a confessional is. They should remember what an altar is. They should remember that sacred space is not merely “meaningful.” It is consecrated. It belongs to God.
And when the men charged with guarding it hand it over to the night, the faithful have every right to ask whether those men still believe in the day.
Washington: Kneeling as a Traffic Problem
Now consider the reported directive from Cardinal Robert McElroy discouraging altar rails and temporary Communion kneelers in Washington, D.C.
Because the sourcing appears to be report-based rather than an official public decree, one should be careful about stating the details too absolutely. But the reported rationale is entirely believable because it fits the larger liturgical ideology: kneelers supposedly disrupt the flow of the Communion line, and their use might normalize kneeling rather than standing.
That phrase — “the flow of the Communion line” — deserves contemplation.
For centuries, Catholics knelt to receive the King of Kings. The posture itself taught doctrine. The architecture taught doctrine. The body confessed what the mind might not yet fully understand.
Modern liturgical bureaucracy looks at this and sees a traffic problem.
This is the genius of liturgical modernism. It rarely says, “We deny the Real Presence.” Instead, it rearranges the entire ritual world so that the Real Presence no longer receives the bodily grammar of adoration. The doctrine remains on paper, but the posture is reeducated.
Kneeling is tolerated as an exception, but the structures that make kneeling natural are removed. Reverence is technically permitted, but institutionally discouraged. The faithful are told they may kneel, but the parish is told not to provide the rail. The law is not always openly broken; the culture is simply engineered.
And this is why altar rails matter.
The altar rail is not merely furniture. It is a border. It says that the sanctuary is not common space, Communion is not ordinary food, and the communicant approaches a mystery, not a distribution point.
To remove the rail in the name of flow is to reveal the governing assumption: the line must move, the ritual must function, the people must process, and adoration must not interrupt the system.
Madrid: Bad Bunny Gets the Gesture, Tradition Gets the File
Then there is the reported meeting or brief greeting between Leo XIV and Bad Bunny in Spain.
Christ’s encounters converted sinners. He did not lend His sacred office to their celebrity apparatus while refusing serious engagement with those trying, however imperfectly, to preserve Catholic tradition.
This is where the contrast with the SSPX becomes powerful. The Society of Saint Pius X has repeatedly sought engagement over doctrinal questions that go to the heart of the postconciliar crisis: religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, the new liturgy, and the continuity or discontinuity of Vatican II. Whatever one thinks of the Society’s canonical situation, its questions are Catholic questions.
Yet the traditionalist is treated as a dossier. The celebrity is treated as a photo opportunity.
Bad Bunny represents exactly the kind of cultural power modern churchmen instinctively want near them: youth, fame, media attention, global relevance, secular glamour. Traditional Catholics represent something more threatening: judgment, memory, doctrine, and the embarrassing insistence that the Church before 1962 was not an unfortunate rough draft.
That is the real divide.
The postconciliar establishment can tolerate almost anything except the old Catholic claim that the Church already possessed the truth and did not need to reinvent herself through modernity.
Conclusion: The Holy Is Being Negotiated Away
The tragedy of these incidents is not merely that they happened. It is that they are believable.
No one is surprised anymore.
That may be the most damning fact of all.
We are no longer shocked that a cathedral Mass can become a sports-celebration moment. We are no longer shocked that a rainbow Eucharist can be treated as pastoral inclusion. We are no longer shocked that churches can be used as cultural exhibition spaces. We are no longer shocked that kneeling can be treated as a problem. We are no longer shocked that global celebrity seems easier to welcome than Catholic tradition.
The holy is being negotiated away in public.
And the faithful are being trained to call the negotiation pastoral.
But God is not a stakeholder. The Eucharist is not a platform. The altar is not a stage. The church is not a venue. The Communion rail is not an obstruction. The sinner is not helped by having his sin blessed, decorated, joked about, or woven into liturgical identity.
The crisis is not that the Church has enemies outside her walls. She always has.
The crisis is that too many men inside the walls no longer seem to know what the walls are for.
If you value independent Catholic analysis and want to help keep this work going, you can make a contribution or subscribe below. Every donation and subscription directly supports the writing, research, and production of Hiraeth in Exile.
Thank you for helping preserve independent Catholic journalism rooted in truth and tradition.
When asked what the problem was with clapping at Mass....
Padre Pio answered, “At Calvary there were those applauding Christ's death; soldiers and demons.”
both my local NO parishes adhere to clapping.. it's gut wrenching.. have to drive 25 minutes to a NO with no clapping most of the time... 35 to FSSP... 45 to SSPX chapel..
"No one is surprised anymore... That may be the most damning fact of all...."
AMEN
THEY (meaning the episcopate) no longer need blackmail and have forgotten who the walls are for. Welcome back, Chris... your wit and skills were sorely missed.