Serviam,
It's the Atlantic, not a Vatican dicastery. Did you expect fair or honest treatment from this publication?

No, nothing of the sort. I’m just making the observation that, like all modernists, by condemning ancient and revered tradition, they condemn every other generation that held it dear as well.

Can nobody read anymore? Does no one care to go to the horse’s mouth and see what the fuss is about?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/radical-traditionalist-catholic-christian-rosary-weapon/671122/

The author has no axe to grind with the Rosary; rather, he is disturbed to discover that some people are making rosaries out of bullets, posting images of the Rosary wrapped around guns, calling for violence, and otherwise conflating a spiritual weapon with physical weapons. Surely such acts are prima facie blasphemous and contrary to any sort of pro-life identity, and it bothers me to no end that the response of CNA and others has been to play the victim card, misrepresent the author’s opinion, and stir up controversy, where there should be none among people of good will.

Gamba,

I have read the article now, but I don't share your take on the article, for the most part.

There are people in this country who will use religion as a cover for whatever they want to do. (As just obvious examples, the Church of Satan is suing to end restrictions on abortion because those restrictions restrict the free exercise of religion; Joe Biden and many like him in Washington claim to be devout Catholics, and even can be seen in public with their rosaries; a particularly strange group of revisionists claims that all the Founding Fathers were good Christians; Rafael Warnock and Stacey Abrams claim God is pro-abortion; people used to quote the Bible to support the American form of slavery.)

We are in a spiritual war, and the rosary is a powerful weapon in that war. The rosary is more than a mere 'devotional aid'. Bullets used as rosary beads, surely, are no longer usable as gun bullets (one of the resident gun specialists will put me right on that if I'm mistaken), so making rosaries out of them isn't really blasphemous in the proper sense of that word.

"Christian nationalism", so far as I understand the term, is a far cry from traditional Catholicism. In common parlance, "RadTrad" is just the religious version of "right-wing extremist".

Of course Lucifer and the fallen angels find our Blessed Lady (particularly her heel) terrifying. By extension the rosary is not something they like to hear.

I have read the article from The Atlantic. In a rational world, such a piece of "journalism" would be ridiculous. In our irrational world, it is insidious. The following are my reasons for saying so:

1. The article projects a love of violence on people who do not, in fact, love violence. Rather, by its purposeful failure to note any examples of violence against the people it demonizes (liberals would never burn churches, decapitate statues, physically threaten Catholic Supreme Court justices with whom it disagrees, or threaten revenge, right?) while associating its enemies with the very violence mentality it actually practices, it lies by omission and paints its enemies in false color. This is a simple act of propaganda, and one that is sadly effective in our day.

2. It employs and, as necessary, invents derogatory adjectives against its enemies. Never is its enemy called by his chosen name, such as pro-life or Catholic. Always he is "radical", "far-right", "alt-right", "extremist", "homophobic", "transphobic" (not an actually word, as my spell-checker points out) ... in a word "deplorable". He is all of these things, and no one need prove it. This is, yet another propaganda tactic.

3. It ignores actual recent events, as if they only exist in the minds of these "extremists".

But among radical-traditional Catholic men, such concerns take an extremist turn, rooted in fantasies of violently defending one’s family and church from marauders.

Because churches haven't been violently attacked in recent months, right? Because defending one's family with force to repel a home invasion is evil? Because we live in a peaceful, utopian society run by enlightened liberals -- you know, like Chicago? Because Jane's Revenge is an altruistic NGO intent on philanthropic work, like feeding the poor, clothing the naked, and painting violent threats on churches and pregnancy centers?

4. Not only does the article project its cause's failings on its enemies, the article itself accuses its enemies of doing the very thing the article does.

The “battle beads” culture of spiritual warfare permits radical-traditional Catholics literally to demonize their political opponents and regard the use of armed force against them as sanctified.

Is it not true that the article demonizes its political opponents? Does it not inflame the liberal base against these political enemies -- and to what purpose? To heal wounds? To mend divisions? To find common ground? Then why, if not to silence a voice with which it disagrees but whose arguments for life and holiness it cannot actually refute?

Now to the assertion itself. Does the "'battle beads' culture of spiritual warfare" actually do what the article says it does? How many times do we hear from liberals that violent video games do not lead to physical violence? Yet we are supposed to believe that militaristic rosaries do? Why exactly is that?

5. The timing is significant. It comes in the wake of the Dobbs decision and mentions Dobbs in connection to the evils of the "rad-trads". Just based on the title of the article, would anyone expect the article to have anything at all to do with Dobbs? Of course not. Yet this is what it has to say, near the end where the author is about to draw his conclusions:

Yet the convergence within Christian nationalism is cemented in common causes such as hostility toward abortion-rights advocates. The pro-choice protests that followed the leaked early draft of the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, led to a profusion of social-media posts on the far right fantasizing about killing activists, and such forums responded to Pride month this year with extremist homophobic and transphobic “groomer” discourse.

This leads me to believe that the stated title of the article is not genuine. Its purpose is not to warn of the dangers of a new breed of violent extremist. It is rather to create said extremist and identify preexisting political enemies with him. It is to paint abortion and sodomy as normal and opponents of those sins as deranged. It is to call good "evil" and evil "good".

6. Now for the more subtle points. The article forces all Catholics into the "rad-trad" circle in one way or another.

Many radical-traditional Catholic men maintain the hard-line position that other forms of Christianity are heretical, and hold that Catholics alone adhere to the one true Church.

Simply put, this is not a radical idea, notwithstanding the article labeling it "hard-line". I would not be a Catholic if I did not think Catholicism is the one true religion. In fact, the Catholic Church teaches that She is the one True Church. So, basically, if you think Catholicism is true, you are suddenly a "rad-trad". Oh the irony!

7. The article title states that the rosary is being co-opted by "rad-trads" for their nefarious schemes. Like other co-opted symbols used by the "alt-right", the rosary is now fair game. So if you love and promote the rosary, watch out! You're now displaying a symbol of white supremacy by association. So for the sake of peace and civil dialog ... you had better put those beads away...

I think "satanic" is not an exaggerated description of this article.

Drake... you got a 100% on the quiz... extra credit? pray a rosary for these thine enemies.