What reconciliation? SSPX Demotes Former French Superior

Envoy Encore ^ | 5/28/03 | Pete Vere, JCL

[Theosis]

In the past week or two, even some of the most hardened traditionalists I know have complained about SSPX Bishop Williamson's latest monthly letter, in which he appears to take a very firm stand against the possibility of an SSPX reconciliation. Here's an excerpt:

Even if these Romans were to speak exactly the same language as the SSPX still, by their modernist religion, they would not be meaninq the same things. Therefore the "reconciliation" would be verbal, not real, and the SSPX would have lost the protection of its present marginalization.

This does not appear to be much different than his various negative comments about the Campos reconciliation. Williamson, as everyone knows, is from England and was raised (at least nominally) as an Anglican. Reportedly, he briefly passed through the Catholic Church on his way to the SSPX schism. He know runs the SSPX's American seminary, and his influence within North America appears to be quite strong.

On the other end of the spectrum, (which is surprising given his past reputation as a SSPX hardliner) L'Abbe Paul Aulagnier from France is now making some pretty strong statements in favor of reconciliation. To share a little of his background, he was one of the SSPX's first priests and has held the offices of District Superior of France (which if I understand correctly is sort of the position of "first among equals" when it comes to SSPX District Superiorships), District Superior of Belgium and Second Assistant to the Superior General. Here's a loose translation of an excerpt from a recent interview he gave ITEM, in which he tackles these same topics:

I am very happy with the positive reaction of Bishop Fellay. "The negotiations continue," he said, "they are not dead." This is something good. I am always very favorable towards these contacts with Rome. We cannot "separate" from Rome, "forget" Rome.

Thus the best thing is to keep things, it is to keep these contacts frequent. Otherwise our "battle" would lose its reason of being. Our goal, over and above the salvation of souls, is to see our Apostolic Tradition rekindle in Rome -- and from Rome to the entire Church.

All isolation is dangerous, and ours in particular.

If we were not to turn toward Rome, we could in time create "a little Church". [Basically a non-Catholic Church like the Old Catholics - PJV]

Then the schism would be consummated well and good. This is our danger. This is why I am happy about Bishop Fellay.

This is also why I'm happy with the "agreement" that Bishop Rangel worked to bring to a successful conclusion with Rome by creating a personal apostolic administration with an exclusive right to the Tridentine liturgy. I hope we will get there ourselves as well.

Granted, my translation isn't perfect, but you get the gist of what Fr. Aulagnier is saying. Despite couching his comments behind appeals to Bishop Fellay's recent comments, it has taken him great courage to state what he has stated in public. (Which is why I'm not gonna quibble with him over whether the SSPX is headed towards schism or already there -- suffice to say, it appears that we both agree the SSPX will end up there permanently in the future if negotiations and contacts aren't intensified.) My heart and prayers go out to Fr. Aulagnier and I pray he will be successful in urging the SSPX toward reconciliation.

Unfortunately, my head tells me that most SSPX clergy still stand behind Williamson, and that he will likely win out if we don't see a massive change of heart among these same clergy. My pessimism is further amplified by the fact Fr. Aulagnier was recently transfered to North America. This is not good in my opinion. I have always found the SSPX quite euro-centric and thus I would not venture to guess that this transfer to North America was a promotion -- especially as Aulagnier is now in the heart of Williamson's sphere of influence.

Which only raises the following question: whose side Bishop Fellay is really taking behind the scenes? In other words, if Bishop Fellay is really in favor reconciliation, why would he transfer the SSPX's most outspoken and well-respected reconciliarist ourside of his reported sphere influence after he appeared to break with the party line, when no action appears to have been taken against Bishop Williamson -- who appears to be the SSPX's most outspoken opponent to reconcilation?

This gives the appearance of a double-standard and sends a strong message to the outside world that Williamson's ideological influence has won out within the SSPX. In my opinion, traditionalists on both sides need to watch the SSPX's treatment of Fr. Aulagnier carefully, because it likely will be the litmus test of how serious the SSPX is in approaching negotiations. Those like myself at St. Blog who favor reconciliation need to make a strong statement in support of Aulagnier right now.

[ultima ratio]

"To deny the Chaplet of the Divine Mercy, given by Our Lord to Sr. Faustina, is to deny Christ Himself!"

You can't be serious. Are you out of your mind? The woman was illiterate, couldn't write. Most of her "writings" were done by others--and were doctrinally questionable until the Pope took a fancy to her. None of this is important as far as the Catholic faith goes. Believe it or not, as you will, but don't make it the linchpin of your faith. This is truly crackpot thinking.

[FBDinNJ]

I'm not a big fan of the SSPX, mainly because I attend an Indult and I dislike them calling people who attend Indults sell-outs and the such, but I believe that you are very VERY wrong on the issue of the Society of Saint John.

The guy who founded it was actually kicked out of 2 different SSPX seminaries very quickly after he joined them. The first one was in Argentina and the second one was the one up in Minnesota.

After he was practically rode out on a rail by the SSPX he setup shop in Scranton and the Bishop had open arms for him even after the SSPX sent an envoy to Scranton warning him about the creep.

It turns out that the Argentine guy was a VERY active Homosexual who not only enjoyed the company of fellow priests, but also that of teenage boys.

When the Bishop of Scranton allowed the SSJV to start their group, the SSJV conned the FSSP into allowing them to use space in one of their Boarding Schools that they run. I don't want to go into details because I find the whole affair quite repulsive, but as it turns out, the degenerate Priest was having numerous sleepovers with the boys at the boarding school. I believe he was also getting them quite drunk before he took advantage of them.

The worst part about the whole situation was that he actually tried to play the whole thing off as a cultural difference, saying that drinking at a young age is more acceptable in Argentina, and that it is also common in Argentina for young children to sleep with older men in some type of Platonic arrangement. Well as it turns out the Diocese bought his story until the whole Priest Sex scandal erupted up in Boston and only then was he dealt with by the Diocese of Scranton.

[ultima ratio]

Hitler WAS an evil genius. Bishop Williamson condemned Ted Kasczynski as a murderer, though he found his writing intriguing. You have a serious problem with the truth.

[ultima ratio]

"I think that their sexual misdeeds were limited to sleeping in the same bed as some of their students and young acquaintances. I am unfamiliar with any actual impropriety of a sexual nature, but there were certainly other types of inappropriate behavior as well as the sharing the bed."

Now you sound like Bishop Timlin who swallowed that story hook line and sinker. The boys involved--in their mid teens--claimed that was the way the fathers gave "spiritual direction"--in bed. Yeah, sure. And after they had been plied with beer no less.

[Theosis]

"Hitler WAS an evil genius. Bishop Williamson condemned Ted Kasczynski as a murderer, though he found his writing intriguing. You have a serious problem with the truth."

While I certainly agree that Hitler was an evil (and seriously demented) genius, I'm honestly not sure whether or not Williamson would agree on the evil part. I mean, how does one explain the following opening paragraph from his Nov. 1991 newsletter?

"Few of you will be surprised to learn that the September letter appealing to the women not to wear trousers caused a strong reaction, comparable only to the reaction to the Seminary letter which referred to scientific evidence that certain famous 'Holocaust gas-chambers' in Poland cannot have served as gas-chambers at all."

And yes, I have read a complete copy of the entire letter and he does appear to favorably quote (and footnote) the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

[ultima ratio]

"I'm trying to remember. Was Pius XI as concerned about the rise of the Third Reich as he was about what girls wore in the gymnasium?"

You're showing your ignorance. Not only was he concerned, he wrote an encyclical warning against the rise of Nazism and calling it racist and unChristian--long before the rest of the world had caught on.

[ultima ratio]

"Namely, if the priest was guilty of homosexual relations with a young boy in South America, and this caused him to be kicked out of the SSPX the first time, when the SSPX subsequently restored him (and why did they restore him if the allegations were true?), why did the SSPX post him to their North American seminary?"

Because many of the men in S.America had been falsely slandered and were innocent. Archbishop Lefebvre was aware of this and so accepted the men--conditionally, advising that they were to be closely watched. They were--and were booted out subsequently.

[Theosis]

"The worst part about the whole situation was that he actually tried to play the whole thing off as a cultural difference, saying that drinking at a young age is more acceptable in Argentina, and that it is also common in Argentina for young children to sleep with older men in some type of Platonic arrangement."

Just a few points here:

1) Concerning the underage drinking, there is a legitimate culture difference here, which I think goes back to the Puritain roots of the United States. There is still somewhat of mini-prohibitionalist attitude here when it comes to alcohol. Most other non-Muslim countries have lower legal drinking ages, and don't consider moderate underage drinking too big of a deal. (At most a misdemeanor and a small fine.) So I could understand a cultural difference here...

2) Concerning the sleeping in the same beds. From my South American friends, I understand that there is some difference in custom here, in that people of the same gender will often share the same bed when hospitality requires it, without it being sexual in nature. (Even among non-South Americans, Catherine de Huek, whose cause is now under investigation for beatification, and Dorothy Day were known to share the same bed on many occasions when there was simply no other space available at their respective apostolates.) So there is some truth here.

Nevertheless, I have never heard of this practice among people of unequal age unless they were close family members. Additionally, I have never heard of this practice between a cleric and a non-cleric, and to my knowledge the former code would have prohibited it. Therefore, while I cannot judge what happened, as I simply don't know the details,I do think there was a lack of prudence here.

[ultima ratio]

If he quotes the Protocols, then I am wrong. I still find it hard to believe.

[Theosis]

"Because many of the men in S.America had been falsely slandered and were innocent. Archbishop Lefebvre was aware of this and so accepted the men--conditionally, advising that they were to be closely watched. They were--and were booted out subsequently."

Tsk..tsk... you're not admitting that SSPX clergy falsely slander one another now, are you? That being said, after all your griping against the Novus Ordo bishops, excuse if I sound suspicious that rather than transfer him to an administrative position, the appointed him as a seminary professor, which essentially places him in a position of authority in a private setting over a number of single young men, at a seminary overseen by a conspiracy theorist. As good as each of them is at spinning a yarn, I'm not even sure that Malachi Martin or Andrew Greeley could write a novel that would allow me to suspend my disbelief long enough to accept such a plot line...

[St.Chuck]

Therefore, while I cannot judge what happened, as I simply don't know the details,I do think there was a lack of prudence here.

I'm in exactly the same boat. I haven't heard anything about the Society for probably a year. I do believe there were grave instances of bad judgement on the part of the Society priests, financial ones of particular note (meaning provable), and they have been removed from their faculties as a result, and rightly so.

But as far as actual sexual allegations;those have been suspect.

[Theosis]

"If he quotes the Protocols, then I am wrong. I still find it hard to believe."

Very well, "ask and you shalt receive." (As an aside, what's even more...nah, can't think of the word...is that not only does Williamson somehow tie everything into homosexuality and women wearing slacks, but he also sandwiches one of the references to the Protocols between quotes from Holy Scripture...)

Here we go....

-----------

[Speaking of the Clarence Thomas Senate hearings...] Yet before the hearings there was like a hysterical uprising amongst women across the land to insist her phantasizing be heard, during the hearings it received an inordinate amount of attention, and after the hearings there has been a spate of law-suits being filed by her imitators who fell themselves similarly victims.

Not the vile media played no doubt a large part in inflating the issue out of all proportion, in order amongst other things, whichever side won, to bring the Supreme Court into disprepute: "... it is indispensable to stir up the people's relations with their governments in all countries so as utterly to exhaust humanity with dissension, hatred, struggle, evny... so that the goyim see no other course open to them than to take refuge in our complete sovereignty in money and all else" (Pr. 10).

Nevertheless even our media require some raw material to work with, or to inflate, and that raw material was in this case, whether harassment be real or unreal, a deep sense of grievance on the part of many women - like a feeling they have been betrayed. Something is going profoundly wrong in man-woman relations.

Take another example of this grave disruption of nature in the USA today: the invasion of public life by gays and lesbians, men and women being "delivered up to shameful affections... changing the natural use into that which is against nature." (Rom. I 26, 27), then flaunting their unnatural vice in public and being rewarded by the vile media with a blaze of publicity. And decent citizens seem unable to do much about it, partly no doubt because "in countries known as progressive and enlightened, we have created a senseless, filthy, abominable literature" (Pr. 14) , which literature such citizens allow to prevent them from seeing the so-called "alternative life-style" for what it really is, namely one of four sins, as the Catholic Church teaches, so horrible as to cry to heaven for vengeance.

Again, something is going profoundly wrong when men in large numbers turn from women to men, and women from men to women. Might not women wearing trousers be contributing to this blurring and confusion of the sexes? In any case this upheaval, this earthquake in the realm of morals, is the correct back-drop against which to view the arguments for women's trousers, only this time the appeal will be to the men.

--------

Just a couple of points: 1) With regards to the "Pr." references, my Douey-Rheims Bible does not have these aforementioned passages in "Proverbs"; they are, however, almost identical to the respective paragraphs in a translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion I have read. 2) My wife wears trousers around the house. She is also happily pregnant with our next child. I can personally vouch that she is not lesbian.

[ultima ratio]

But in what letters does he cite these Protocol references?

[ultima ratio]

You mischaracterize what happened. The SSPX has had its internal divisions from the beginning. There were those to the right who were sedevacantists and who eventually broke with SSPX; and there were those who pined for Rome at any cost and broke with the SSPX to form the FSSP. Both groups, in my opinion, were misguided and had axes to grind. The interesting facts are that Archbishop Lefebvre was willing to give the two men in question the benefit of a doubt--but prudently. They were carefully watched and very quickly dismissed for conduct that seemed suspicious. Bishop Fellay then acted prudently by advising Bishop Timlin--who behaved imprudently by taking in the two men in question.

[ultima ratio]

Okay--I've found the context. What can I say? I'm offended, that he would use such a source to make a point. It was inexcusable.

[FBDinNJ]

Just a few points here: 1) Concerning the underage drinking, there is a legitimate culture difference here, which I think goes back to the Puritain roots of the United States. There is still somewhat of mini-prohibitionalist attitude here when it comes to alcohol. Most other non-Muslim countries have lower legal drinking ages, and don't consider moderate underage drinking too big of a deal. (At most a misdemeanor and a small fine.) So I could understand a cultural difference here... 2) Concerning the sleeping in the same beds. From my South American friends, I understand that there is some difference in custom here, in that people of the same gender will often share the same bed when hospitality requires it, without it being sexual in nature. (Even among non-South Americans, Catherine de Huek, whose cause is now under investigation for beatification, and Dorothy Day were known to share the same bed on many occasions when there was simply no other space available at their respective apostolates.) So there is some truth here. Nevertheless, I have never heard of this practice among people of unequal age unless they were close family members. Additionally, I have never heard of this practice between a cleric and a non-cleric, and to my knowledge the former code would have prohibited it. Therefore, while I cannot judge what happened, as I simply don't know the details,I do think there was a lack of prudence here.

This is exactly the type of attitude that "Fr. so and so," was such a nice man and could do no evil that got us into the whole Sexual Abuse Scandal in the First place.

Please, I spent the whole of my first year at college with my roommate from Panama and now I have numerous friends from Panama, Colombia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, so don't lecture me about "cultural differences," because as a result of globalization they're now pretty much non-existant.

While the drinking age is much younger in all of Latin America it is still considered very odd and highly unusual for young teenage boys to be getting plastered with an older homosexual male, especially a Homosexual Priest.

Secondly the sexual more of South America are not THAT different from those of the United States. All the young people I know from Latin America have pretty much the same feelings about gays as people do in the United States, and no normal teenage kid from South America would ever think about sleeping in the same bed with an older man, especially if he was a homosexual Priest.

[FBDinNJ]

Suspect? What do you mean suspect? I'd call the sexual allegations, which were produced against the SSJ, damnable.

Why is it that everyone on this board will attack a Bishop or an Order for sexual abuse allegations so long as that such Bishop or Religious order had a liberal streak in it.

The second allegations, and credible ones mind you, are produced against one of our own groups, instead of doing the right thing and condemning such abuse, everyone gets in a defensive position and tries to deny that such events ever occured. Well that's a whole load of balloney, because from what I've read I'd say that I'm 99.9% sure that something gravely wrong, sinful, and highly illegal was committed by many Priests of the SSJ against the boys who were attending that FSSP boarding school.

[Theosis]

"But in what letters does he cite these Protocol references?"

November, 1991.

[Theosis]

Please read the entire context of my original comments.

[Theosis]

"Okay--I've found the context. What can I say?"

That you will begin to ask the SSPX serious questions about why disciplinary action appears to have been taken against the first priest ordained for them by Archbishop Lefebvre, namely Fr. Aulagnier, while day after day Bishop Williamson appears to get away with such actions that in the opinions of many undermine the SSPX's credibility.

I'm offended, that he would use such a source to make a point. It was inexcusable.

Yes, but nobody in the SSPX ever does anything about it. However, when Fr. Aulagnier expresses enthusiasm about the Campos reconciliation and the possibility of an SSPX reconciliation as well, he's demoted not too long afterward and shipped to Williamson's back-yard.

Unfortunately, I must agree with Mr. Christophe at La Nef (France's most insightful traditionalist magazine) when he writes that if Fellay is unable to command obedience from the Williamson crowd should he sign a reconciliation agreement with Rome in the future, then Fellay is unable to command obedience from Williamson and his supporters now. Therefore, he needs to choose quickly between Williamson's followers and Aulagnier's. Unfortunately, I think we know whose side Fellay appears to be taking. This was the subject of my initial posting, and the contrast between how Aulagnier has been mistreated in my opinion and how Williamson is being treated is simply and absolutely scandalous.