The National Catholic Register portal reports on a commencement address delivered by Timothy R. Busch at the University of Mary in Bismarck, North Dakota, on April 25, 2026. Busch, founder of the Napa Institute, congratulates graduates of this institution, praising it for “cutting against the historical grain” by allegedly deepening its commitment to Jesus Christ over the past 50 years. He explicitly attributes the university’s direction to the “guidance of the Holy Spirit as given to us through the Second Vatican Council,” which he claims “breathed new life into the Church’s evangelical mission” and “empowered” the laity. Busch frames the graduates’ mission as lay leaders tasked with cultural renewal, defending human life, and navigating the rise of artificial intelligence, all while invoking the “teachings” of St. John Paul II and the “new Holy Father,” Pope Leo XIV. He concludes by quoting St. John Henry Newman on finding one’s definite service to God. The entire address is a masterclass in modernist rhetoric, presenting the conciliar revolution as a divine mandate for a naturalistic, secularized “evangelization” that fundamentally undermines the supernatural mission of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
The “Holy Spirit” of Vatican II: A Counterfeit Pentecost
Timothy Busch’s assertion that the University of Mary’s trajectory is a “beautiful response to the call of the Holy Spirit” as “given to us through the Second Vatican Council” is not merely an error; it is a blasphemous inversion of divine truth. The true Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, guides the Church into *all* truth (John 16:13), preserving her from error and leading her to a deeper understanding of the immutable deposit of faith. The “spirit” that animated Vatican II, however, was explicitly one of “aggiornamento” – a “bringing up to date” that, in practice, meant a capitulation to the world, a rejection of centuries of Catholic doctrine, and the embrace of modernist errors condemned by St. Pius X in *Pascendi Dominici Gregis* and *Lamentabili Sane Exitus*.
Busch’s claim that Vatican II “breathed new life into the Church’s evangelical mission” is a dangerous falsehood. The Church’s evangelical mission, defined by Christ Himself, is to “teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 28:19). This mission is supernatural, aimed at the conversion of souls to the Catholic Faith and their sanctification through the sacraments. Vatican II, with its emphasis on “dialogue,” “ecumenism,” and “religious liberty,” effectively gutted this supernatural mission, replacing it with a naturalistic humanism that seeks common ground with error rather than the conversion of heretics and infidels. The “new life” Busch speaks of is the very spirit of apostasy, a “new springtime” that has yielded only the bitter fruit of empty churches, widespread sacrilege, and a profound crisis of faith.
The “Empowered” Laity: A Demotion from Supernatural Mission
Busch lauds Vatican II for “empowering” the laity, defining them as “regular believers” who are not priests, monks, or nuns. While the Church has always recognized the role of the laity, Vatican II’s “empowerment” has often manifested as a secularization of the Church’s mission, reducing it to social activism, political engagement, and the promotion of a vague “human dignity” detached from its supernatural foundation. The true “empowerment” of the laity comes from their baptismal grace, their participation in the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and their living out of the Catholic faith in their daily lives, always under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.
The address’s focus on “lay leaders” shaping culture and society, while neglecting the primary duty of the laity to save their own souls and those of their families through prayer, mortification, and the sacraments, is a hallmark of modernist thinking. It shifts the emphasis from the supernatural to the natural, from the eternal to the temporal, and from the Church’s divine constitution to a mere human organization adapting to the world. The “two paths” Busch mentions – priesthood/religious life and lay work – are presented as distinct but equal, whereas the Church has always taught that the religious life, dedicated entirely to God, holds a higher place in the hierarchy of perfection.
Patriotism and the “Fundamentally Good” America: A Naturalistic Distortion
Busch invokes St. John Paul II to assert that “patriotism is a spiritual duty” and that “America is fundamentally good,” claiming its Protestant founders “built a nation that reflects Christian teaching more than any other nation in human history.” While patriotism can be a virtue, it is not a “spiritual duty” in the same way as faith, hope, or charity. The Church has always taught that the primary allegiance of a Catholic is to God and His Church, not to any earthly nation. To claim that a nation founded on Protestant principles, which inherently reject the fullness of Catholic truth, “reflects Christian teaching more than any other nation” is a profound historical and theological error. It ignores the countless Catholic nations throughout history that, despite their flaws, were explicitly built upon Catholic principles and submitted to the Church’s authority.
This naturalistic view of America, detached from the necessity of its conversion to the Catholic Faith, is a dangerous illusion. The “division and doubt about our nation’s future” Busch laments are not merely political problems but symptoms of a deeper spiritual malaise: the rejection of Christ the King and His Church’s social reign. The “truth and justice” he speaks of are not secular concepts but are rooted in divine revelation and the Church’s unchanging moral law. The “departure from truth and justice” is not a recent phenomenon but a centuries-long process of secularization, culminating in the modernist apostasy that now infects even those who claim to be Catholic.
The “Pro-Life Cause” Without the Fullness of Faith
Busch’s discussion of the “sanctity of human life” and the “pro-life cause” is commendable in its intent but fatally flawed in its modernist framing. He speaks of “compassion” and “generosity” over “confrontation” and “judgment,” a classic modernist tactic to soften the Church’s prophetic voice and avoid the hard truths of moral law. While compassion is essential, it must be coupled with a clear and uncompromising condemnation of abortion as a grave evil, a mortal sin, and a crime against God’s law. The “vulnerable mothers and children” he mentions need not just material help but, more importantly, the truth of the Gospel, the sacraments, and the call to repentance.
The reference to the *Dobbs* decision and the “momentum” of “activists who support the murder of innocent life” highlights the political dimension of the issue. However, Busch’s solution – “paving the way for the ultimate end of abortion itself” through cultural renewal – is insufficient without a simultaneous call for the conversion of America to the Catholic Faith. True pro-life work is inseparable from the Church’s mission of evangelization and the establishment of Christ’s social reign. Without this supernatural foundation, even the most well-intentioned pro-life efforts risk becoming mere humanitarianism, devoid of the grace necessary for true and lasting change.
Artificial Intelligence and the “Clarion Call” of Leo XIV
The address’s treatment of artificial intelligence (AI) as a “frightening” but ultimately neutral technology, dependent on “how people use that technology,” reflects a naive and naturalistic view. Busch’s assertion that “no technology is inherently right or wrong” ignores the profound moral and spiritual implications of AI, especially when developed and deployed by a society increasingly hostile to God and human dignity. The “tyranny” he warns of is not merely a misuse of technology but a potential tool for further dehumanization, surveillance, and control, especially in the hands of those who reject divine law.
His invocation of “Pope Leo XIV” and his “clarion call to action for the laity” is a stark reminder of the conciliar sect’s ongoing efforts to adapt to and embrace the latest secular trends. The choice of papal name to honor Leo XIII, who guided the Church through the Industrial Revolution, is presented as a sign of continuity. However, Leo XIII’s pontificate was marked by a clear condemnation of the errors of modernity and a robust defense of Catholic social teaching, including the necessity of Christ’s reign over all aspects of society. The “AI revolution” as presented by Busch and the conciliar authorities is not met with the same prophetic clarity but with a call for “well-formed leaders” to “provide stability” and “point them to the real God in heaven.” This vague deism, detached from the necessity of the Catholic Church and her sacraments, is a far cry from the robust faith of Leo XIII.
St. John Henry Newman: A Modernist Saint for a Modernist Age
The invocation of St. John Henry Newman as a model for finding one’s “definite service” is particularly ironic, given Newman’s well-documented role as a precursor to modernist thought. His theories on the development of doctrine, while attempting to reconcile historical change with dogmatic continuity, have been widely interpreted as opening the door to the very “evolution of dogmas” condemned by St. Pius X. Newman’s conversion from Anglicanism, his emphasis on conscience over authority, and his ambiguous writings on papal infallibility make him a fitting patron for a “Church” that prioritizes individual interpretation and adaptation over immutable truth.
The quote, “God has created me to do Him some definite service,” while inspiring in a naturalistic sense, is stripped of its supernatural context when used to justify a “mission” that is not explicitly rooted in the Catholic Faith and the Church’s Magisterium. For a Catholic, one’s “definite service” is first and foremost to love God and keep His commandments, to participate in the life of the Church, and to work for the salvation of souls. Any “mission” that deviates from this, no matter how well-intentioned or socially beneficial, is ultimately futile and potentially dangerous.
A Commission for Apostasy, Not Greatness
Busch concludes by telling the graduates, “You aren’t receiving a credential today. You’re receiving a commission for the rest of your life.” This “commission” is not for the spread of the Gospel as understood by the Church for two millennia, but for the propagation of a watered-down, secularized “Christianity” that seeks to “find meaning and mission” within the confines of a worldly existence. The “bold new territory” he speaks of is not the mission field of pagan lands but the very heart of a “Church” that has already surrendered to the world.
The “life of greatness” promised is not the greatness of saints who suffered martyrdom for the faith, who converted nations, or who performed miracles. It is the greatness of “lay leaders” who navigate secular challenges, promote a vague “human dignity,” and adapt to technological advancements, all while remaining firmly within the bounds of a conciliar sect that has abandoned its supernatural mission. The “Blessed Mother of Our Lord” invoked at the end is not the Mary of Fatima, who warned of the consequences of apostasy, but a sanitized, ecumenical figurehead for a “Church” that has lost its way.
In essence, this commencement address is a blueprint for spiritual mediocrity, a call to embrace the errors of modernism under the guise of “faith” and “leadership.” It is a testament to the profound theological and spiritual bankruptcy of the conciliar sect, which, in its desperate attempt to remain “relevant,” has sacrificed the very essence of the Catholic Faith on the altar of the world. The graduates of the University of Mary, far from being “ready for a life of greatness,” are being prepared for a life of comfortable apostasy, serving a “god” of their own making rather than the God Who Is, Who Was, and Who Is to Come.
Source:
You Are Ready for a Life of Greatness (ncregister.com)
Date: 05.05.2026