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.

[sinkspur]

It is true Williamson is immoderate in his writings at times. I have said so before. But this does not in any way disqualify him as bishop. And in his personal relations he is always kind and respectful of others--not at all what he seems in writing.

Well, we've all seen pictures of Saddam Hussein patting babies on the head, too.

I never thought the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was something I should commit to memory, as, apparently Williamson has done.

[ultima ratio]

These are NOT religious positions that any Catholic needs pay any attention to, but are the political and social views of a man who is clearly an arch-conservative. There is nothing doctrinally Catholic about them. How could they be? Catholic women have been founding and attending Catholic institutions of higher learning for centuries. No pope or council has ever proscribed their doing so. So Williamson can argue the issue all he wants--it is only his opinion and has no moral force.

Neither is his notion that God has punished America with the collapse of the World Trade Center any much more different than Reverend Jerry Falwell's comments along the same line right after 9/11. This is what religious leaders sometimes do--they get things wrong--much as the Pope did recently in condemning the war in Iraq and siding with Saddam. Nobody thinks this was a matter of faith and morals.

You need to understand the difference betweem here between promulgating Catholic doctrine and mere opinion. These are opinions. They are no more valid than the average opinion of any priest or bishop or pope giving a sermon and using contemporary events and issues to make a general religious statement. They are sometimes off the mark. But such meanderings have no significance as official teachings. Do you really think what Williamson says about 9/11 or the Sound of Music matters to orthodox Catholics?

[Maximilian]

I have no idea, but you still have to have razor burn when you hit the water, or you can't feel it well enough.

The issue is modesty with respect to swimsuits. And the idea of young ladies experiencing "razor burn" when they hit the water in front of crowds of people hardly seems in keeping with the concept of modesty. Pope Pius XI issued some letters on the topic, and here are quotes:

Our Most Holy Father Pope Pius XI has never ceased to inculcate, both verbally and by his writings, the words of St. Paul (1 Tim. xi,9-10), namely, “Women ... adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety ... and professing godliness with good works.”[ellipsis in the original, not by me]

Very often, when occasion arose, the same Supreme Pontiff condemned emphatically the immodest fashion of dress adopted by Catholic women and girls -- which fashion not only offends the dignity of women and against her adornment, but conduces to the temporal ruin of the women and girls, and, what is still worse, to their eternal ruin, miserably dragging down others in their fall. It is not surprising, therefore, that all Bishops and other ordinaries, as is the duty of ministers of Christ, should in their own dioceses have unanimously opposed their depraved licentiousness and promiscuity of manners, often bearing with fortitude the derision and mockery leveled against them for this cause. [Sound like this thread?]

Let parents keep their daughters away from public gymnastic games and contests; but if their daughters are compelled to attend such exhibitions, let them see that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb.

It is desirable that pious organizations of women be founded, which by their counsel, example and propaganda should combat the wearing of apparel unsuited to Christian modesty, and should promote purity of customs and modesty of dress.

So girls should be "fully and modestly dressed" even if they are on a swim team. And if Williamson is a nut (on this issue at least), then so was Pope Pius XI and virtually every bishop in the world at that time (within our parents' lifetimes).

[Desdemona]

Ah, you've got me there. Mine are a serviceable navy and a khaki. I think you're being too flashy. :)

Not to mention the little beads on the matching sweater. Oops.

Good night.

[Desdemona]

I'm too tired to answer.

Good night

[Maximilian]

I believe that website is run by one who has a personal grudge against the accused. There is a defense, Bishop Timlin seems to be acting with prudence and a desire for justice.

I agree. Dr. Julian Bond had a legitimate grievance, and no doubt he was distraught at the destruction of all his plans, however, his criticisms of Bishop Timlin and others have become hysterical to the point of being self-defeating.

[ultima ratio]

"I never thought the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was something I should commit to memory, as, apparently Williamson has done."


Another slander.

[sinkspur]

Do you really think what Williamson says about 9/11 or the Sound of Music matters to orthodox Catholics?

If my bishop's politics sounded like those of Lyndon LaRouche, I'd be a bit concerned.

[sinkspur]

And if Williamson is a nut (on this issue at least), then so was Pope Pius XI and virtually every bishop in the world at that time.

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?

[ultima ratio]

There are huge differences between what is going on among Novus Ordo bishops and Bishop Williamson.

1. Williamson may write offensive letters, but his Masses are orthodox and so is his doctrine. His writings on the contemporary scene may be far out, but these are minor annoyances, considering everything else. Our kids learn the catechism and our Masses are traditional.

2. While his writings offend, he does not do so personally. I myself was disposed to dislike him. But I found his actual sermons--tincted by his arch-conservatism--nevertheless surprisingly muted. His dealings with the faithful were courteous and friendly and never overbearing.

[ultima ratio]

"If my bishop's politics sounded like those of Lyndon LaRouche, I'd be a bit concerned."

There's where we differ. I would be more concerned if my bishop's Mass sounded like that of Martin Luther. You need to separate the essential from the non-essential.

[ultima ratio]

"Spoken like a real Catholic. :o)"

I would include popes in that statement.

[Maximilian]

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?

This kind of anti-Catholic slander is beneath you, sinkspur. I hope this will refresh your memory: he wrote the encyclical "Mit Brennender Sorge" (With Burning Sorrow) regarding the Nazis, long before it was fashionable to be against them, in fact a year and a half before the Allies declared "Peace in our time" after signing their treaty with Hitler at Munich.

Mit Brennender Sorge

"ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON THE CHURCH AND THE GERMAN REICH"
Given at the Vatican on Passion Sunday, March 14, 1937.

[Theosis]

"No pope or council has ever proscribed their doing so. So Williamson can argue the issue all he wants--it is only his opinion and has no moral force."

Would my children know the difference if I were to have them confirmed by Williamson? Thanks, but no thanks. I think I will stick to the indult.

[sinkspur]

Thanks for the reminder. Pius XI, like Benedict XVI (?) are blank slates, as popes, in my mind.

[ultima ratio]

"They have frozen themselves into a time warp!
I've had that impression also. Like the Amish, Mennonites, or Hassidic Jews, they will latch on to the 1950's and stay there. I wonder if they sell "Leave It To Beaver " videos in their chapel bookstores."

Your impression is wrong. It is one thing to feel nostalgia for the past. It is another to know that your religious faith has been preempted for something totally new and bogus. That is what's going on. The Novus Ordo is not Catholic, neither is the new theology. You need to reread the post I sent you a few nights ago. It spelled this out very clearly.

[Theosis]

I believe that website is run by one who has a personal grudge against the accused. There is a defense, Bishop Timlin seems to be acting with prudence and a desire for justice.

I agree. In claiming that the main priest was twice kicked out of the SSPX for problems of a sexual nature involving boys and young men, there is one question that to my knowledge a number of SSPX supporters keep avoiding. (The others keep trying to blame it on some sort of sedevacantist split that took place in South America.) 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? I mean, isn't the seminary the last place you would want to send a priest who reportedly engages in homosexual activity with young men, especially when you're placing that priest in a position of authority? It is no wonder that Bishop Timlin reportedly had a hard time believing the SSPX when Fellay reportedly approached him, especially when you take some of Williamson's (Williamson being the rector of the North American seminary) other views into consideration.

[Maximilian]

Thanks for the reminder. Pius XI, like Benedict XVI (?) are blank slates, as popes, in my mind.

I apologize then for making the implication that you were only feigning ignorance in order to smear Pope Pius XI. But really, he is a pope that you can't afford to not be familiar with. He spent his career as a librarian, until he was pulled from obscurity to become the pope. His first encyclical outlined the plan for his entire pontificate, and then he methodically went about implementing it, one step at a time. Besides publishing "Mit Brennender Sorge" condemning the Nazis, he also published "Quadragesimo Anno" condemning the communists.