Chris Jackson on Trad Inc., LifeSite, sedevacantism, and more

'We don’t need more gatekeepers. We need open, honest, public discussion.'

Chris Jackson has been a man amongst boys since the conclave.

Unlike most Catholic commentators, Jackson has refused to bend the knee to the Deep Church narrative being pushed to promote the neo-Modernist Leo regime.

Perhaps best known for his writings for The Remnant (and for popularizing “Big Modernism”) he has turned his recently-launched Substack — “Hiraeth In Exile” — into one of the fastest growing blogs on this site. Be sure to subscribe to his work. Also, follow him on Facebook and X.

I sent Chris an email earlier this week asking for his take on the most pressing issues facing the Church and the Trad movement. His answers are, as usual, spot on.

Kennedy Hall has said that he is upset that people use the term "Trad Inc." Do you find this term helpful and how would you define it? Also, do you have anything to say about Hall's frustrations?

“Trad Inc.” is just a name for what happens when Catholic truth becomes a brand and a business model. It’s not about personalities, it’s about the structure: an entire media class that once stood against the revolution but now makes its peace with it, because the alternative is to go broke or be blacklisted.

If you’re publishing books, speaking at conferences, appearing on Catholic media outlets, and moderating your tone to protect all that, then yes, you’re part of Trad Inc., even if you don’t want to be. The term exists because there’s now a visible pattern: strong opposition under Francis, immediate docility under Leo. Silence purchased in the currency of Summorum hope and donor stability.

If that shoe doesn’t fit you, don’t wear it. But if it does, don’t blame the mirror.

What do you think is causing influencers who strongly denounced Francis over the past 12 years to essentially run cover for Leo these days? You called out Damian Thompson in a recent blog on this subject. Do you believe there was some bargain struck at the conclave? Are these people just tired of the battle, confused, or something else?

I think the sad truth is that for many in traditional Catholic media, the ideal pope is Benedict XVI, not St. Pius X. Benedict gave us the trappings of traditional piety with post-conciliar theology and allowed the Latin Mass to be freed.

For many, that was the best they thought they could hope for. When all of that was reversed under Francis, they were horrified and spoke out.

But now, with Leo showing similar trappings of traditional piety, they figure they’re halfway home. All they need to do is wait and hope that Leo reverses Traditionis Custodes, frees the Mass again, and they’ll count that as victory.

But notice: they’ve given up on doctrine. Leo represents far worse than the conservatively interpreted post-conciliar theology of Benedict. Francis was a clear break, even from Benedict’s Vatican II Catholicism. The Bergoglian church now teaches in its catechism that the Church was wrong on human dignity for 2,000 years, blesses homosexual couples, allows unrepentant adulterers to receive Communion, rewrites the words of Christ in the consecration with “for all,” and places women religious in positions of authority over male clergy.

This is a situation far worse than what traditionalists under John Paul II or Benedict could have imagined. And traditional media fought it, hard, under Francis.

But now, when Francis' successor plans to cement those errors as Catholicism for the next two decades, they throw in the towel?

Think about that. A child baptized today will grow up knowing nothing but Bergoglianism as official Catholicism if Leo goes unchecked. Even JPII- or Benedict-era Vatican II orthodoxy will be a forgotten relic.

And this is the moment they choose to lay down their arms? For what? More conservative aesthetics, a gentler personality, and maybe the off-chance of lighter restrictions on the Latin Mass?

At what cost? The entire 2,000-year doctrine of the Catholic Church?

Are we supposed to keep silent about Leo just to preserve a false peace while Catholicism is gently smothered to death, until Bergoglianism becomes indistinguishable from Catholicism itself?

That’s madness. But it’s the deal Trad Inc. has apparently accepted. It has, for all intents and purposes, surrendered. It sees the aura of Leo as too difficult to fight, and so it has offered terms: complete silence about Leo’s cementing of Francis’ legacy, in exchange for the hope of looser Mass restrictions and a stable donor base, fueled by the novelty of an “American pope.”

It’s a sad, sad bargain. When I look around and see nearly every organization and media outlet that used to oppose Francis now falling silent,.or worse, publishing fawning praise for every pious gesture Leo makes, while ignoring red flag after red flag that I highlight daily on my Substack, it’s hard not to be disheartened.

What do you predict will happen to LifeSite in the coming weeks, months, and years? Can it survive? Will it become another appendage of the Deep Church, especially as persons like Keith Fournier, who has said he speaks in tongues, are seemingly set to become its public face?

It breaks my heart to say it, but if LifeSite abandons the role it once played, calling out apostasy no matter the cost, then yes, it will become an appendage of the Deep Church.

Not by selling out entirely, but by softening, deflecting, pivoting to safer moral stories, while avoiding what it once called “the war for the soul of the Church.”

When men like John-Henry Westen and Stephen Kokx are gone, and names like Keith Fournier, who embraces charismatic emotionalism over doctrine, step into the spotlight, it’s a sign.

Not just of new leadership, but of a new paradigm. A more ecumenical, feel-good, vaguely conservative Catholicism that tries to bridge Rome and its base by saying just enough to keep both.

But that won’t work anymore. Not now. The lines are too clear. Either you resist the program Francis began and Leo is now perfecting, or you make your peace with it. There is no third way.

If LifeSite wants to survive as a prophetic voice, it must choose clarity over caution. Otherwise, it’ll still be around, but as a ghost of what it once was.

You wrote two recent essays on sedevacantism that seemed to be fairly well received. Can you reflect on this issue more (i.e. why we shouldn't excommunicate one another over having different views on this)? Also, where do you see this "debate" going under Leo? Clearly the guys at The WM Review have helped make this issue more "mainstream."

Although I'm not a sedevacantist, I wrote those pieces because I’m watching good Catholics, people with eyes wide open, ask hard questions about the papacy, the Church, and the crisis we’re living through. And I see them being met not with honest answers, but with fear tactics: “Don’t go there. Don’t think that. Don’t be like them.”

But look around. What’s being called Catholicism today is unrecognizable to every prior age. The Catechism condemns capital punishment. Rome blesses homosexual couples. Heretics are celebrated. Sacraments are profaned.

Are we really going to pretend nothing has changed?

Sedevacantism isn’t the problem. It’s a response to the problem. Whether you hold the position or not, it’s at least asking the right question: Can someone who publicly dismantles the faith actually be the visible head of the Church?

And under Leo, who continues every major initiative of Francis but cloaks it in pious calm, that question is only going to become more urgent.

The WM Review guys have helped by showing this isn’t some fringe internet cult. It’s a serious theological debate, rooted in pre-Vatican II tradition. And frankly, the more Trad Inc. refuses to engage it, the more they discredit themselves.

Traditional Catholic media of the past didn’t fear this discussion. I’ve seen old videos where Ecclesia Dei priests, Count Neri Capponi (a respected canonist), and Fr. Brian Harrison publicly debated sedevacantist priests from the SSPV. I’ve seen sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn debate Professor Robert Fastiggi — live, on camera. These were serious exchanges. Where are they now?

For a moment, I had hope. Matt Fradd hosted a debate between sedevacantist Br. Peter Dimond and recognize and resist proponent, Jeff Cassman. The video went viral. It got traditional Catholics talking on both sides. That’s healthy. That’s necessary.

But then the conservative neo-Catholic world freaked out. Fradd got pressured to remove the video. While he left the video up, he promised never to host another debate like that again. Predictably, the popesplainers went into overdrive. Trent Horn and Michael Lofton each released multiple response videos, not to honestly engage, but to reassure their audiences and protect the narrative.

Dimond’s response videos absolutely shredded their critiques. Agree with him or not, the dishonesty of his critics was obvious.

We need more honest debate, not less. And we need the best of every camp — sedevacantist, recognize-and-resist, conservative — to engage in real dialogue. Personally, I prefer written debate. It allows for depth, clarity, and citations. Catholics used to do this in journals. Now we settle for livestreams and soundbites.

But above all, we don’t need more gatekeepers. We don’t need more fear. We need open, honest, public discussion, because we’re living through the greatest crisis in Church history.

Do you have anything else you’d like to add?

Yes. I want to speak directly to Catholics who feel abandoned by their bishops, their media, their institutions.

You’re not crazy. You’re not schismatic. You’re not alone.

What’s happening now is a bait-and-switch on an eschatological scale. The Church we were taught to love has been overrun by men who want peace with the world. And the people we once trusted to name that betrayal? Many of them have gone silent. Or worse, they’ve learned to speak in soothing half-truths.

In the face of that, we should find comfort in the example of Archbishop Lefebvre, who once said:

“My personal experience never ceases to amaze me. These bishops, for the most part, were fellow students with me in Rome, trained in the same manner. And then, all of a sudden, I found myself alone. But I have invented nothing new; I was carrying on.”

The truth doesn’t need permission. The remnant must speak: loudly, fearlessly, without illusion.

Leo is not the answer. He is the revolution, learning to disguise itself in incense and smiles. If we fall for that, we deserve the exile we’re in.

But if we refuse, if we proclaim the old faith even from the wilderness, then we stand where the Church still lives.

Visit Jackson’s “Hiraeth In Exile” Substack here. Also, follow him on Facebook and X.