‘Stand Up Like Free Men’: The modern history of standing for Communion
Standing for Communion was the most disliked liturgical change, according to one survey at the time.
The posture of Catholics receiving Communion has been a subject of discussion in recent weeks, after Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago wrote a column last month asking that people “receive Holy Communion standing.”
While kneeling is known to have been the universal Roman Catholic practice for many centuries, receiving the Eucharist while standing is currently the ‘normative’ or ‘default’ posture for the United States and in many other places around the world.
It might be assumed that the Second Vatican Council had mandated the change, but the actual history of standing to receive Communion is a bit more complicated than that.
In reality, there had been calls for the change in Communion posture before the council, while the conciliar documents themselves were actually silent on the issue.
When changes to Communion posture were implemented, it was largely at the insistence of bishops and priests, based on practical reasons and appeals to Church history, rather than an appeal to council documents or instruction.
The laity, on the other hand, largely opposed the idea of standing while receiving Communion. In fact, it was the most disliked liturgical change, according to one survey at the time - even among Catholics who approved of other changes that were taking place in the Mass.
This is the story of the push for Communion while standing, the popularization of the practice post-Vatican II, and the controversy surrounding the liturgical change, which continues today.
Pre-conciliar trends
Even before the Second Vatican Council, there was advocacy in the Church among some liturgical theologians for implementing the practice of standing while receiving Communion.
Prominent members of the Liturgical Movement, a theological and pastoral initiative which promoted liturgical reform and active participation in the liturgy, argued that standing for reception is the most desirable method for a number of reasons — it was an ancient practice, it is logistically efficient, it is suitable for modern times. Those advocates sought to normalize standing well before any official liturgical reforms were implemented.
One such advocate was Fr. Frederick McManus.
McManus was a colossal figure within the Church during this period. In the words of one summary, he was “the most respected canonist of his generation, first teaching at and then leading the school of canon law at CUA. He served on the Vatican’s pre-conciliar, conciliar, and post-conciliar liturgical commissions which drafted, edited, and then implemented Sacrosanctum concilium. He was part of the US bishops’ press panel at the council, giving briefings on the closed sessions, and he wrote countless feature articles for the US bishops’ official news service. He also served from 1965-1975 as the first executive director of the US bishops’ committee on the liturgy, the official body responsible for guiding the liturgical reform in the United States.”
In early 1961, McManus published the “Handbook for the New Rubrics,” a canonical and practical commentary on changes to the Mass and Divine Office promulgated by Pope John XXIII on August 15, 1960. In his comments on the changes and directives for the communion rite, McManus said (emphasis added):
There are many ways, at least some of them commonly used, to make the distribution of holy Communion expeditious while preserving reverence and good order: the assistance of as many priests as convenient, to give Communion with the celebrant . . . provision for additional places for Communion in uncrowded areas of the church, with Communion tables in addition to the usual rail, for example, at the heads of aisles or in side areas . . .
Where conditions are seriously crowded, it may even be advisable to expedite the distribution by directing the communicants to stand rather than kneel; the problem and the inconvenience sometimes encountered seem sufficient to excuse from the ordinary regulation that the laity in the Latin Church communicate while kneeling.
This recommendation by McManus – the preeminent American canonist and widely respected authority on rubrics and liturgy – provided official approval for liturgical reformers to implement the practice of standing for Communion even before the council.
McManus also suggested the use of something called a “Communion table,” a term which was used to describe a cutting-edge trend in liturgical and architectural innovation during these years. Communion tables, also called Communion stations, were smaller podiums or truncated altar rail sections where the laity would receive communion. They could be portable and temporary or built as permanent fixtures.
One of the pioneers in this kind of modern church architecture was St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota. St. John’s had been, since the 1920s, the epicenter of the Liturgical Movement in the United States. In 1958, the monks broke ground on a massive, strikingly modern concrete church that included four “Communion tables” instead of an altar rail, where communicants would receive while standing. The church opened in 1961 and served as both an inspiration for the Liturgical Movement throughout the nation and the embodiment of the movement’s vision for the future.
In 1962, the American Liturgical Movement’s 23rd annual liturgical congress (known as the “Liturgical Week”) was hosted by Archbishop Thomas Connolly of Seattle. During Masses at the congress, eight “Communion stations” were used to distribute Communion – while standing – to the roughly 4,000 worshippers at each Mass. These ‘stations’ did not employ physical podiums or fixtures, and were merely locations scattered throughout the venue where priests stood with ciboria.
In December of that same year, Archbishop Joseph McGucken of San Francisco revealed that future liturgical changes which would likely follow the Second Vatican Council – even though they had not yet been announced – would influence the design of the new Cathedral of St. Mary (the previous cathedral from 1891 had been destroyed by arson two months prior).
According to news accounts, at a press conference regarding the planning for replacing the cathedral, McGucken relayed that “[t]he possibility of receiving Holy Communion in a standing position could result in the removal of altar rails, which separate the people from the altar” among other notes on the potential design.
Such changes also filtered down to ordinary parishes. For example, at the urging of a friend who was a member of the Liturgical Movement, Fr. John Mulroy of St. Joseph’s parish in Athens, Georgia removed the altar rail and began distributing Communion while standing in 1963. That change was personally approved by Atlanta’s Archbishop Paul Hallinan, along with other liturgical changes at the parish,.
Hallinan was a champion of liturgical reform, a member of the ecumenical council’s commission on the liturgy, and would go on to play a key role in officially implementing the revised liturgy in the United States.
And Hallinan himself would also implement standing for Communion a year later, while introducing the first liturgical changes to his archdiocese.
Post-conciliar directives: 1964-1965
In December 1963, the Second Vatican Council approved the liturgical constitution Sacrosanctum concilium. A month later, the Vatican issued preliminary liturgical instructions which permitted national bishops conferences to begin implementing modest, initial liturgical changes according to the principles of the document.
In 1964 and 1965, as bishops around the world began to introduce what are now commonly called the first of the “interim” liturgical reforms, a clear trend emerged: many bishops decided to introduce Communion while standing as part of these initial changes to the liturgy.
But the conciliar documents and subsequent Vatican instructions did not mention this posture for Communion in any way.
The push to have the laity stand during the Communion rite also extended to another liturgical development: the congregational singing of a mandatory hymn or psalm during Communion.
In 1964, many dioceses issued directives requiring Massgoers to stand in their pews when the Communion hymn began – and requiring them to remain standing after returning from receiving the Eucharist until the distribution of Communion was finished.
In the beginning, Communion while standing was supposed to be optional – at least on paper. Episcopal directives in the mid-1960s merely granted permission to stand, in addition to continuing to allow the laity to kneel.
For example: in September of 1964, Bishop Loras Lane of Rockford, Illinois issued liturgical directives which, among other things, granted permission for Communion while standing. In February 1965, Cardinal Joseph Ritter of St. Louis – a longtime champion of the Liturgical Movement – issued new directives governing the liturgy in his archdiocese which included permission for Communion while standing at either Communion stations or at the altar rail.
But even by early 1965, the current of clerical opinion seemed to be rushing more quickly than ecclesial directives or conciliar instructions. It became more and more evident that many priests, bishops, and even the pope himself, believed that Communion while standing was a central – and unavoidable – part of the new liturgical paradigm.
On March 7, 1965, Pope Paul VI personally celebrated Mass according to the 1965 liturgical changes for a crowd of about 5,000 people at All Saints Parish in Rome. The Mass was noteworthy for its use of a freestanding altar, facing the people, and for the use of the Italian vernacular - but also because Communion was received standing.
On March 15, as part of his weekly general audience, the pope addressed various complaints he had heard about the “interim” liturgical changes, including complaints about standing for Communion:
Beloved sons and daughters, our friendly conversation at an audience like this cannot but refer to the day’s theme: the application of the liturgical reform to the celebration of the holy Mass.
If the public character of this meeting did not prevent it, we should like to ask you, as we do at other meetings of a private character, for your impressions regarding this great innovation. It deserves the attention of everyone. Well, we believe that your answer to our question would not be different from those we are receiving these days.
Liturgical reform? These answers can be reduced to two categories. The first category is that of the answers in which a certain confusion, and therefore a certain annoyance is noted. Previously, say these observers, we were peaceful, each one could pray as he liked, everything was known regarding the unfolding of the rite. Now everything is novelty, surprise, change; even the ringing of the sanctus bell is abolished. And then there are the prayers which one cannot find. Communion is received standing. And there is the close of the Mass which ends abruptly with the blessing. Everybody gives the answers; there are many movements, rites and readings recited in a loud voice. Well, there is no peace left and we understand even less than before, and so on.
The pope’s remarks at the audience suggest that he viewed standing for Communion as simply part and parcel of the liturgical reform – something that was now permissible and here to stay, even if it was not (yet) obligatory for everyone.
Church buildings and rapid spread
The push by priests and bishops to introduce Communion while standing is also demonstrated by trends in church building during these years. Many new churches began to include plans for Communion “tables” or “stations”.
In August 1964, before the United States had even implemented the very first of the post-conciliar liturgical change, Bishop Robert Tracy of Baton Rouge, Louisiana proposed a dramatic renovation project for St. Joseph’s Cathedral. According to Fr. John Carville, who was at the time parochial vicar, Tracy worked feverishly on the project because he “wanted to be the first bishop in the United States to renovate a Vatican II cathedral.”
From the very first proposals, Tracy’s vision included Communion stations for the administration of Communion to the standing laity.
Many new building and renovation projects began in 1965 – in parishes small and large around the country – all of which demonstrated a commitment to the new vision for Communion while standing via Communion tables or stations.
Examples can be found seemingly everywhere that year: the O’Connor Chapel at the University of St. Joseph in West Hartford; Our Lady of Mercy in Eureka, Montana; St. John the Baptist church in Heffron, Wisconsin; St. Thomas More church in Omaha, Nebraska; St. Joseph church in Redding, California; St. Mary church in Mechanicsville, Iowa; St. Paul church in Manchester, New Hampshire; Our Lady of Consolation church in Independence Hill, Indiana; and more.
The spread of Communion standing can also be gauged by reports of how quickly and how widely the practice was adopted during these years – not just in new building projects, but implementation across existing parishes.
No comprehensive studies of the subject exist, but there are records of a few local or regional surveys that survive and which offer some insight into these trends. By 1966, surveys indicated that an estimated 25% of parishes across all three dioceses in the state of Connecticut were standing for Communion, compared with 40% of parishes in the Archdiocese of Toronto and more than 60% in the Archdiocese of St. Louis.
There seem to have been regional differences in the adoption of these and other new liturgical trends, varying according to the personal desires and directives of the diocesan bishops and the clergy.
Lay reception
But while the practice of standing to receive Communion was growing - largely at the insistence of clergy and liturgists - it was not well-received by the laity, who from the very beginning had a nearly universally negative reaction to the change.
That reaction was most prominently expressed in Catholic diocesan newspapers during these years. In letters to the editor and weekly columns, there are repeated mentions of the laity being confused and deeply unhappy about needing to stand for Communion.
In January 1965, almost immediately after the introduction of the earliest liturgical changes, various formal and informal surveys were conducted in the UK to understand lay opinions.
A canvass of Catholics parishes in London received hundreds of responses. Amid positive comments and various complaints about the changes, there were multiple objections to being forced to stand after receiving Communion.
Complaints likewise began appearing immediately in American diocesan Catholic newspapers around the nation. In a letter to the editor in January 1965, one woman in San Francisco lamented the loss of kneeling and described the new method of standing as “very disrespectful and loose.”
Another woman in Portland, Oregon was so upset that she wrote to Archbishop Edward Howard via registered mail to ensure he personally had to retrieve a letter from the post office, and subsequently telephoned him directly to say that she refused to receive Communion standing. (Howard responded by giving her permission to continue kneeling).
Msgr. John Conway, who ran a prominent nationally-syndicated question-and-answer column for Catholic newspapers, reported in July 1965 that “many people have written me letters objecting to receiving Communion standing. Some who like all other features of the revised liturgy still object to this. They think it shows lack of reverence, absence of adoration; and they can see no advantages in it either to the priest or the people.”
A month later, Conway again addressed the topic of standing for Communion in his column in response to continued confusion and unhappiness by the laity. He would deal with this topic repeatedly in the coming months and years, as widespread unhappiness by the laity remained a persistent issue.
It quickly became obvious that objections to standing for Communion were not limited to a vocal minority or a few isolated letter-writing malcontents. Around this same time, the U.S. bishops’ news service shared the results of a national survey of Catholic attitudes towards the initial liturgical reforms.
The survey revealed that standing for Communion was the single most disliked change of all: 64% of the laity who responded said they opposed the practice, while only 30% liked it.
In November 1965, Mary Perkins Ryan – a married laywoman who played an extraordinary part in many key initiatives of the Liturgical Movement – wrote a column on the subject which exhorted her fellow lay folk to “Stand Up Like Free Men” for Communion. She wrote:
Many people, it seems, are still bothered by the idea of standing up to receive Communion. But perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they are disturbed by not kneeling to receive Communion. The new practice seems to be disrespectful, an omission of a fitting sign of respect for the sacramental presence of Christ . . . But, since Christians have been redeemed from slavery to sin and made God’s beloved children, they can come into His presence as free men, not slaves . . . The present re-introduction of the custom of standing rather than kneeling during the Canon and when receiving Communion is meant, then, to renew our sense of the dignity and freedom of our Christian vocation.
In November 1966, a university professor in the Archdiocese of Atlanta summarized his assessment of things for the diocesan newspaper. In his view, a majority of the laity did not want to receive Communion while standing and – more importantly – he did not think it was helpful to achieving the intended goal of the liturgical reforms. He wrote:
I have personally liked most of the changes that have taken place . . . In spite of reluctance by many, I believe that any of the detailed changes in Mass liturgy that increase the sense of participation will ultimately be accepted. Changes that are unrelated to this can be accomplished in fact, but may not be accepted whole-heartedly. I don’t believe many Catholics feel that receiving Communion while standing, rather than kneeling, increases their participation in the Mass. I believe most of them feel that they are left in an unnatural position: a position which is not consistent with their inner attitude.
Clerical reaction
As lay opposition to the idea of standing for Communion continued, priests and bishops had to navigate the dissatisfaction from their congregations.
Their response – by-and-large – may seem to observers today to be underwhelming, unpastoral, and in a number of cases even downright antagonistic.
Priest commentators in diocesan newspapers and periodicals regularly dismissed the concerns raised by the laity in their parishes, in letters to the editor, or in opinion surveys. Even the pope appeared to respond in that way to these concerns.
At his general audience mentioned above, in March 1965, the pope seemed to dismiss complaints about the “interim” liturgical changes – including standing for Communion – as “spiritual indolence, which does not want to make any personal effort of intelligence and participation.”
In September 1965, Fr. Joseph T. Nolan - an enthusiastic promoter of liturgical reform who would go on to become a well-known professor at Boston College - responded to those who either objected to these new Communion practices or who were unhappy with how unsuccessful they had been when introduced to ordinary parishes. He wrote: “Those who wonder about singing at Communion, or receiving in a standing position, should go to a Liturgical Week [the annual congress of the Liturgical Movement]. At least it works well there.”
Priests also regularly told inquiring members of the laity that this was a deeply historical practice, that it had been the norm in the Latin-rites of the Catholic Church for more than 1,300 years – “from at least the 4th to the 17th century” was the common refrain from McManus, Conway, and others. For that reason, they argued, it was a better practice than kneeling and merited being implemented again.
This argument about the history of the practice was regularly deployed by liturgists and priest columnists, but it did not seem to be very persuasive with the laity.
Perhaps this was because the laity, even though they were not specialists, could intuit that it was not true – according to historians like Josef Jungmann and Uwe Michael Lang, the laity had adopted kneeling during the Eucharistic prayer by the 9th century and kneeling for Communion “gained ascendancy” beginning in the 11th century.
Priests also regularly informed the laity that it didn’t matter what they thought about the changes – the choice to stand or kneel wasn’t actually up to them.
Msgr. John Conway, who seemed to grow irritated that layfolk continued to write to him with questions about or objections to standing for Communion, repeatedly responded by saying:
The general rubrics of the Mass do not specify whether communicants should stand or kneel. So the choice is up to the bishop, the pastor, the individual priest, or the communicants – in that order.
Comments, explanations, and Q&A responses from priests in the ‘clerical commentariat’ grew more acerbic and dismissive toward the concerns and unhappiness of laity during these years of initial liturgical change.
One priest –Fr. Anthony Granato of St. Rocco’s church in Newark – commented on how unseemly and off-putting this had become by 1966: “I feel that the sarcastic tone of many articles published about the ‘new liturgy’ does much to hinder the promotion of it. Many priests feel as I do; we rebel after reading flippant articles.”
Some pastors genuinely felt sympathy for the majority of their flock who did not want to receive Communion standing up. Because of that, those priests wanted to make the changes slowly for their sake.
But their sympathy only went so far; there was never a question of allowing the status quo to remain. It seemed a foregone conclusion that their parishes would be forced to receive Communion standing eventually. As one priest wrote, in October 1965:
As to standing for Communion, I am not prepared [to implement it] – yet, that is; for there is so much to be done before we insist upon that – to make a parish issue of how people will receive Holy Communion. I have great sympathy for those who may find this way difficult, destructive of their peace of mind and their devotion. But I am convinced there is a way far superior to, far more meaningful than, what we are used to.
It should be noted that in some cases – though exceedingly rare – priests or bishops did listen to the unhappiness of the laity and change course in modest ways. For example, in September 1965 Archbishop John Dearden of Detroit conducted a survey about lay reactions to the “interim” liturgical changes thus far.
In response to overwhelming unhappiness to standing for Communion, and at other points during the Mass, Dearden reversed his initial directives. After just under a year of the new method, some kneeling would be restored to the Communion rite.
As the liturgical reform progressed and the months rolled on, the laity’s unhappiness with standing for Communion did not abate. It seemed that no amount of cajoling in Q&A columns, fuzzy historical claims, or arguments from authority could make the majority of the laity desire to receive Communion while standing.
In the face of this unyielding opposition, various liturgists and experts – who had been leading the charge for implementing this change – began to soften their public stances on the matter, if ever so slightly.
By March 1966, even Fr. Frederick McManus began to hedge his advocacy for the practice by saying that it was not “an article of faith” even if he believed that standing was better than kneeling. A few months later, Fr. Godfrey Diekmann, another Liturgical Movement luminary, likewise answered public questions about the practice by saying that while it was “more correct” to stand, “kneeling was a perfectly proper and reverent position.”
In February 1967, one priest writing in The Catholic Northwest Progress declared that the effort to convince the laity to accept Communion standing seemed to be a total failure:
Of all the changes that have taken place in the Church, none have met with more opposition than those involving Communion. Whether it be singing during Communion or standing to receive Communion, people otherwise sympathetic to the changes draw the line here.
The long road to ‘normative’
The situation during the initial years of the “interim” liturgical changes was chaotic and confused.
There were many more champions of standing for Communion amongst the clergy than amongst the laity, and a non-negligible amount of clerical time and effort seemed to be devoted to attempting to impose their desires for the practice upon an unwilling and unhappy flock.
But there was something which was conspicuously absent from any of the newspaper columns and arguments in favor of the practice: recourse to conciliar documents or instructions.
Liturgists, bishops, and priest commentators at the time do not appear to have justified the implementation of (originally optional and then mandatory) standing for Communion by saying that it was something called in the conciliar decrees or subsequent instructions.
Given that such arguments were frequently used to defend and encourage adoption of other parts of the liturgical reform, the failure to do so for Communion while standing is significant.
It seems that this change in Communion posture was simply something that many clerics believed was good and essential for the modern era – something that needed to be implemented irrespective of the particular details emerging from Rome and over the strident objections of the laity.
Perhaps because of the stark divide between clergy and lay attitudes on the subject, it was not until 2001 that standing was named the "normative" posture for receiving Communion in the United States.
On May 25, 1967, the Congregation of the Sacred Congregation of Rites issued an instruction on various liturgical norms known as the “Instruction on Eucharistic Worship.” It said:
In accordance with the custom of the Church, Communion may be received by the faithful either kneeling or standing. One or the other way is to be chosen, according to the decision of the episcopal conference, bearing in mind all the circumstances, above all the number of the faithful and the arrangement of the churches. The faithful should willingly adopt the method indicated by their pastors, so that Communion may truly be a sign of the brotherly union of all those who share in the same table of the Lord.
But despite this instruction, the U.S. bishops did not, as an episcopal conference, issue a declaration on which posture would be standard.
The reason for this is unclear.
Perhaps, despite the enthusiasm amongst some of the bishops, there was a lack of broad support for such a sweeping national decision at the time. Perhaps the essentially universal reaction by the laity against being forced to receive Communion standing also gave the bishops pause.
Despite the lack of a definitive national ruling, some individual bishops did attempt to declare standing for Communion as the normal or expected posture for their own dioceses. Archbishop Paul Hallinan of Atlanta was one who did so, in November of 1967.
In the years and decades which followed, the Vatican issued additional norms and instructions. In January 2000, Pope John Paul II approved the text of the second edition of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal. The norms for receiving Communion stated:
160. Then the priest takes the paten or pyx, and approaches those who will receive communion, who come forward in procession as is customary. The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves, much less to pass them from hand to hand among themselves. The faithful receive communion either kneeling or standing, according to what the Conference of Bishops has determined. When they receive communion standing, it is recommended that they make an appropriate reverence, as determined by these same norms, before receiving the Sacrament.
The new text of the General Instruction caused a great deal of consternation and a flurry of activity in the United States – with the hierarchy seeking clarifications and exemptions from the norms – as it became clear that various common American Mass practices and customs were not in conformity with the text.
The norms for Communion, referencing the decision of the episcopal conference, also seemed to remind the American bishops that they had never actually made any such decision.
On June 15, 2001, at the spring meeting of bishops held in Atlanta, the U.S. bishops’ conference finally declared that standing for Communion was the normative posture in the United States. When an English version of the revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal was published in 2003, the section regarding Communion was updated in light of the 2001 decision of the bishops:
160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.
The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.
When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.
More than 34 years after the Vatican “Instruction on Eucharistic Worship,” standing for Communion was finally normative for America. It appeared that decades of questions and disputes about the practice would, at last, be put to rest.
But it was not to be. New generations of the laity continued to desire to receive Communion while kneeling, and additional action from the Vatican further vindicated their wish and right to do so.
Following the 2004 instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum and the 2010 revision of the Roman Missal, the American bishops once again revised the norms for Communion in the General Instruction on the Roman Missal for use in the United States:
160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants, who usually come up in procession. It is not permitted for the faithful to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them on from one to another among themselves.
The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91).
When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.
With this clarification to the norms, the 2001 “victory” of those who advocated for Communion standing was all but erased.
But - as evidenced by Cupich’s recent column and the controversy it prompted - more than half a century after the implementation of standing for Communion, the issue is not entirely settled.
Rather, the debate continues today.
For the past 15 years at big Masses at our cathedral (Chrism Mass, Ordinations, etc.), the number of people kneeling to receive Holy Communion gets larger, and the age of the people kneeling gets younger. I'm tickled pink, and I hope the older priests take note.
Paul VI's comment (in the scanned image) about people making complaints not out of "true devotion" but "spiritual indolence" disappoints me. Like really? Anyone who wants to kneel for communion just hates change? There's no devotional motivation behind it?
It reminds me of Pope Francis' frequent dismissal of traditionalists (as in his newly published autobiography) as "rigid." You can't claim to be against clericalism if you're going to dismiss out of hand what the laity are telling you because you don't like it.
I bristle also because it's that lofty Ciceronian invective style of rhetoric which I see in a lot of educated corners of the Church, both on the "left" and "right." It's not pastoral or Christian. It's divisive, dismissive, and smug.