Bishop Fellay: Rome Divided, Some Love, Some Hate Society's Work

The Eponymous Flower ^ | 10/07/2010 | Tancred

[0beron]

In fact the Society of St. Pius says there are two parties in Rome: "One always has to ask, who will have the last word" -- explained the Society's Head in an Exclusive interview.

[kreuz.net] Today Bishop Bernard Fellay -- the General Superior of the Priestly Society of St. Piux X -- on the occasion of the Fortieth Anniversary Jubilee of his Society.

He did this in the context of an exclusive interview with French Pius-Portal 'La Porte Latine'.

The Society of Pius X was recognized in 1970, November 1, by the then Bishop of Freiburg in Switzerland, Msgr Francois Charriere (+1976).

[wideawake]

Looks like Fellay is avoiding the elephant in his parlor: the mentally ill non-Catholic who dominates a large contingent of Society members - Richard Williamson. No Williamsonites, no problem.

[sayuncledave]

While I definitely would like to see a greater role for tradition in the Catholic Church, especially as regards both the SSPX (and the FSSP), I, too, see challenges wrought by Bishop Williamson.

[wideawake]

If a prominent Roman Catholic bishop were spending time hanging out with a twice-divorced, non-Catholic high society model who was a friend and a financial supporter of Communist radicals, Williamson would have a field day denouncing him as a symbol of the corruption and worldliness of Rome as contrasted with the traditional purity of his Jansenist splinter.

But when Williamson makes time with Michele Renouf and her neo-Nazi pals, it's A-OK to the SSPX rank and file, apparently.

[0beron]

I feel your hate. :)

[wideawake]

I feel your hate. :)

I observe your projection.

Why don't you address the fundamental point that the SSPX refuses to acknowledge: Archbishop Lefebvre inadvertently created a monster when he consecrated Williamson.

Every time the Pope and Bernard Fellay make any progress towared reconciling the SSPX with the Church, Williamson says or does something calculatedly outrageous to derail the proceedings.

Fellay seems completely unwilling to acknowledge the fact that Williamson is the most powerful weapon that the opponents of the SSPX within the Church have in their arsenal.

Were it not for him, none of their objections would be sustainable for long.

The fact is that the aging progressives in the hierarchy and Richard Williamson have the same goal: neither of them want the SSPX to be reconciled to the Church.

Fellay can't keep pointing to the Vatican's obstructionists without acknowledging the SSPX's.

[GCC Catholic]

But when Williamson makes time with Michele Renouf and her neo-Nazi pals, it's A-OK to the SSPX rank and file, apparently.

I'm not defending the Society... but I suspect that they have simply chosen to say nothing about +Williamson, in hopes that they can keep him out of the public eye as much as possible.

[mas cerveza por favor]

Fellay can't keep pointing to the Vatican's obstructionists without acknowledging the SSPX's.

What is your proposed solution?

[wideawake]

I suspect that they have simply chosen to say nothing about +Williamson, in hopes that they can keep him out of the public eye as much as possible.

I'm sure you're correct.

Alternately, they could suspend him to send a message.

[mas cerveza por favor]

Alternately, they could suspend him to send a message.

On what canonical basis?

[wideawake]

What is your proposed solution?

For the SSPX to laicize Williamson for causing public scandal.

[wideawake]

On what canonical basis?

The SSPX itself has zero canonical basis, so the question itself is kind of amusing.

But I'm sure Canons 1373 and 1374 would provide more than sufficient grounds.

[mas cerveza por favor]

For the SSPX to laicize Williamson for causing public scandal.

That would require a transgression of canon law or public immorality (as defined by Church law).

[wideawake]

And, of course, Canon 1369.

[mas cerveza por favor]

The SSPX itself has zero canonical basis, so the question itself is kind of amusing.

The SSPX has provided canonical justification for everything it has done at every step of the way. There are no gradations of communion within the Church. One is either in or out. The Pope has made it clear that all four SSPX bishops are in the Church. There has never been any dispute about whether these bishops were validly consecrated although none of them has yet been assigned the jurisdiction of a see. Currently, SSPX representatives are conducting high-level doctrinal discussions with the Holy See.

You may disagree with the Pope's decision, but your argument here is with the him and not directly against the SSPX in this case.

[mas cerveza por favor]

Canons 1373 and 1374 would provide more than sufficient grounds. And, of course, Canon 1369.

This is the solution you provide to Bishop Fellay for getting rid of Bishop Williamson? You must be joking:

Canon 1369 A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.

Canon 1373 A person who publicly incites his or her subjects to hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical authority or ministry, or who provokes the subjects to disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.

Canon 1374 A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty- one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict.

Reasoned criticism is not the same as inciting hatred. The SSPX has only criticized those Vatican II innovations and resulting scandals divergent from Tradition, and thereby not legitimately part of the Catholic Church. Bishop Williamson has acted no differently regarding these issues than any of the other SSPX bishops.

Informed (and canonical) disobedience was necessary to preserve the Latin Mass during the decades when virtually all bishops of the world tried enforcing the lie that the Latin Mass had been suppressed.

[wideawake]

The SSPX has provided canonical justification for everything it has done at every step of the way.

Everyone from a disobedient child to a hardened criminal has a slew of justifications for the wrongs they do, and sometimes they are very elaborately reasoned.

The cold fact is that the Pope, and not the Society, is the judge of what is canonically authorized and what isn't. His decisions are irreformable, and the Society spent at least two decades ignoring his decisions.

There are no gradations of communion within the Church. One is either in or out.

Indeed.

But the Society tried to create a gradation, by adopting the fiction that one can say with his lips that he is in communion with the Holy See while consistently ignoring and disobeying the Holy See.

The Pope was consistent, saying that the magical inbetween place the Society claimed to inhabit did not exist and therefore the Society's prelates were excommunicate.

The Pope has made it clear that all four SSPX bishops are in the Church.

They are in it now, and only because he says so. They were not members of the Church for over 20 years. Williamson's claim that he never was validly excommunicated is simply false.

There has never been any dispute about whether these bishops were validly consecrated

Of course not, since their principal consecrator was himself validly consecrated. They were illicitly consecrated.

although none of them has yet been assigned the jurisdiction of a see.

And none of them likely ever will be, since their disobedience has shown them unworthy of jurisidiction.

Currently, SSPX representatives are conducting high-level doctrinal discussions with the Holy See.

Correct. Williamson is not one of them.

You may disagree with the Pope's decision, but your argument here is with the him and not directly against the SSPX in this case.

You couldn't be more wrong.

I am delighted that the Pope decided to approach the Society and that three of the four ringleaders relented and opened the lines of communication.

My argument here, though, is specifically with Fellay. Fellay knows that the aging progressives in the Curia may gripe and moan but that they have no power to prevent the Holy Father from welcoming the Society. Fellay knows that the only obstacle to complete reconciliation is Williamson. Williamson is too weak within the Society to shut off contact with the Holy See, but he has enough followers within the Society to apparently prevent Fellay from calling him out and openly acknowledging that his "brother bishop" is the problem.

[wideawake]

You must be joking

Hardly.

A person who publicly incites his or her subjects to hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical authority or ministry

I would think that a bishop who instructs the faithful that the Pope "has still not understood that the bad results flow from the bad principles. Until he understands that, he will continue to preside over the destruction of the Catholic Church" is quite openly violating that cnon, no matter how one tries to spin it.

Informed (and canonical) disobedience

There is no such thing as "canonical disobedience", no matter where you search the 1917 or 1983 Codes.

[mas cerveza por favor]

My argument here, though, is specifically with Fellay. Fellay knows that the aging progressives in the Curia may gripe and moan but that they have no power to prevent the Holy Father from welcoming the Society. Fellay knows that the only obstacle to complete reconciliation is Williamson. Williamson is too weak within the Society to shut off contact with the Holy See, but he has enough followers within the Society to apparently prevent Fellay from calling him out and openly acknowledging that his "brother bishop" is the problem.

So we are back to my original question. You imply +Fellay should eject +Williamson, but suggest no means for him to do so.

You cited canon law that in no way differentiates Bishop Williamson from the rest of the SSPX. +Williamson is no more extreme than any of the other bishops on the issue at hand, namely doctrine. All four bishops hold that documents of Vatican II are written in ambiguous (at best) language that they is easily and has been widely interpreted heretically.

The immediate purpose of talks is to nail down the Holy See on exactly where it stands on this heresy. Does the Vatican recognize and oppose the heresy? Will it clearly teach, once and for all, that today's Catholic Church rejects all of what was traditionally understood to be heresy, Vatican II notwithstanding?

The only thing notable about Williamson's stance is his widely quoted pessimism about the Vatican revising its policy of ambiguity toward Vatican II. However, most of the other bishops have said essentially the same thing. None of them have ever suggested settling for an agreement to disagree.

[mas cerveza por favor]

There is no such thing as "canonical disobedience", no matter where you search the 1917 or 1983 Codes.

Canon 1323: No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:[...]

4. acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;