Monday, June 30, 2008

Malfeasance, abuse, victimhood - and the rocky relations between Rome and the SSPX

By Brian Kopp

"And let every man be swift to hear, but slow to speak, and slow to anger. For the anger of man worketh not the justice of God."
-- James 1: 19-20


Abuse

When the priestly sexual abuse crisis broke in 2002, one of the under-reported aspects of the story was the way the Church had persecuted and silenced those who came forward with reports of abuse. In the 1960's, 1970's, and even into the 1980's, the local diocese would often counter sue the parents of the victim to intimidate them into silence. Even in those cases in which the victim reached an out of court settlement, there was always a gag order. Victims could never discuss their cases in public, so abusers went unnoticed and undisciplined. Those who coddled and shuffled the abusers did so with impunity and rarely if ever paid a price for their collusion in the abuse.

I first met a victim of priestly abuse in a mental institution. The individual had attempted suicide after a motor vehicle accident resulted in a repeat DUI charge, and he was facing jail time. He had led a self-destructive lifestyle of alcohol and drug abuse and homosexuality. Decades later, as his life fell apart following the DUI, he finally told his mother about the abuse he had suffered at the hands of a visiting priest in the parish church, and later at the priest's home.

She was put in touch with me via a mutual friend, and I talked extensively with her and her son about his case and his life before and after the abuse. He had been a normal teenager and altar boy prior to the multiple episodes of abuse. He had had a steady girlfriend. His mother could never understand why he changed so much in his mid teens. The priest had plied him with drugs and alcohol prior to abusing him. He never recovered from those repeated episodes of abuse. Looking into his eyes and hearing his story was horrifying. He had no reason to make it up, nothing to gain. He told a matter-of-fact tale of abuse and subsequent debauchery, and his eyes were cold and empty. He was broken and without faith.

I sat with his mother through a meeting with the local leaders involved. They seemed incredibly kind, generous, and eminently pastoral during that meeting. Over the coming months and years, his mother told me they failed to keep their word on any of the promises they had made in that meeting. It was all turned over to the lawyers and the insurance companies, it eventually went to court, and all pretenses of being "pastoral" went out the window.

Victimhood

In all the recent discussions about the SSPX and negotiations with Rome, there has been a truly frightening level of vitriol from both SSPX critics and SSPX supporters. The former can be found in the posts and comment boxes of Catholic forums, blogs and websites all over the internet. The latter is limited to a small handful of outlets, most notably Angelqueen.

It is hard to understand the level of anger and outright hatred expressed towards the leaders and supporters of the SSPX -- unless one spends a fair amount of time reading the more extreme rantings of some of the leaders and supporters of the SSPX. It is also hard for any Catholics on the outside of the debate to understand the level of anger and outright hatred expressed by some of the leaders and supporters of the SSPX towards Rome -- unless one comes to grasp the fact that most SSPX defenders have been liturgically and spiritually molested by the post-conciliar Church itself, and told to shut up about it, for forty years now.

AngelQueen forum itself began as a refuge for members of a conservative political forum, FreeRepublic.com, who had been banned or censored for unapologetically expressing orthodox and/or traditional Catholic views. (I was one of the "founding members" of Angelqueen and served a long time as a moderator, and have always been a prolific contributor.) Though its founder is an attendee at an SSPX chapel, Angelqueen was not then and is not now an "SSPX forum," though that has become the majority viewpoint.

One of the most anti-Catholic, vitriolic, and hateful posters on the FreeRepublic forum went by the screen name "Chancellor Palpatine." His level of invective was simply inexplicable. No Catholic discussion on FreeRepublic was left unmolested by his poisoned keyboard. Eventually someone figured out that he was a plaintiff in a priestly molestation case down south. Afterward, it was easy to understand the source of his rage. But an explanation is not an excuse; I often pointed out to him that being a victim did not confer upon him the right to verbally victimize others.

Victims of abuse often get over the abuse and get on with relatively normal, productive lives. They also, quite often, become bitter, angry and even hate-filled over the injustices done to them. Victims are quite often very unpleasant individuals to deal with on a personal basis. They can be terminally narcissistic, and they often turn their status as a victim into a cudgel with which to attack anyone perceived in any way to be associated with their abuser.

I count many friends among the members of AngelQueen, and I truly admire the contributions the SSPX has made to restoring traditional Catholicism. But after Bishop Fellay mischaracterized this Pope as a "perfect liberal" I knew I had to dissociate myself from their forum. The victim mentality, and the anger and vitriol that goes with it, runs rampant. Even John Grasmeier, the owner, has been posting cynical and sarcastic editorials that go way beyond the pale; abuse seems to be one of those gifts that keep on giving.

Malfeasance

Many of the decent Catholics who have sought sanity, safety and refuge within the SSPX did so because of the sheer lunacy, and often heresy and apostasy, that accompanied the reforms enacted in the name of Vatican II. They were victims of the liturgical abuse that universally accompanied the reforms. They were victims of a new theology so far removed from everything they knew and loved as to be seen as a "new religion" altogether. And they were spiritual victims of the same priests whose personal lives were so intrinsically disordered they could not possibly pass on the Catholic Faith whole and intact. For every altar boy that a homosexual priest molested, entire parishes were robbed of Catholic orthodoxy and orthopraxis. For every bishop who looked the other way, entire dioceses went astray.

The Church has yet to deal justly with those within the hierarchy who coddled the homosexual molesters and advanced their careers, let alone address the true homosexual nature of the abuse crisis. The Church has yet to admit the wholesale and almost universal victimization of the entire laity in the post-Vatican II era. The Faith was diluted and orthodox theology was eclipsed. The liturgy was gutted, and the people left bereft of the consolation and succor that came from traditional pious practices.

If those within the SSPX do not trust Rome to fix the problems, they are not wholly to blame, and they do not deserve much of the scorn heaped upon them of late. If they are still angry, it is often just anger. The Church has not apologized to the millions of scandalized Catholics. The scandal was not due to "pedophilia," it was due to the widespread malfeasance of its religious, priests, and hierarchy.


Just Anger


There is such a thing as just anger. Victims rightfully experience just anger, and search for justice. Abuse victims were denied justice and therefore sought it in lawsuits. The SSPX is searching for justice and restoration of that which was lost and/or stolen from the Church, and use the court of public opinion to plead their case.

Those who have been scandalized and/or victimized must constantly reflect on their motives. Only the Saints' motives were pure. Even the SSPX can harbor mixed motives.

We all must recall James 1: 19-20:

"And let every man be swift to hear, but slow to speak, and slow to anger. For the anger of man worketh not the justice of God."
-- James 1: 19-20


The time for words of anger, even just anger, are past. The acts of Archbishop Lefebvre, up till the consecrations of 1988, were those of a just man attempting against all odds to preserve traditional Catholicism. The final arbitration of what happened in 1988 is still to be seen; it could be resolved overnight with the stroke of a pen.

But the anger -- just anger -- is going to have to be put away now, so that the greatest number of souls can be saved. The culture of victimhood must be rooted out. The Pope does need the SSPX, and the SSPX must realize now that they are nothing without the universal Church. The Church will move forward in its role of saving souls with or without the SSPX. If one must choose between allegiance to Pope Benedict XVI and allegiance to the bishops of the SSPX, there can be only one choice. It is no more "papaolatry" to muster behind this embattled Pope than it is Fallay-olotry or Williamson-olotry to support SSPX bishops.

The Church does not subsist in the SSPX, and the SSPX bishops do not now and will never have the charisms of the Papacy. This is not 1975, nor is it 1988. This is 2008, and this Pope has done what no "perfectly liberal" bishop would ever do: he has freed the Traditional Latin Mass and admitted it was never abrogated. This Pope of 2008 is not the theology student of the 1950's, nor the Fr. Ratzinger of VII, nor even the Cardinal Ratzinger of Pope John Paul II's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He loved Pope John Paul II, but he is not beholden to nor petrified by the false sense of collegiality that marked his predecessor's pontificate. He is truly a courageous man who is trying to restore the Faith, and in the process (in my opinion) do reparation for the spiritual malfeasance of the post-conciliar era. He is a man of the VII council, so he will never pose the issue in those terms, but his actions belie that he sees the shipwreck that 40 years of experimentation caused.

The post-Summorum Pontificum age

Twenty years is long enough. Yes, the SSPX leaders, priests, and supporters have suffered. Yes, they've been victimized. Yes, their anger was often just anger.

But the time for that is over:

"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child."1 Corinthians 13:11


The SSPX is no longer the child of the 1970's or the 1980's; the Church of 2008 is not the Church of the VII Council. The post-conciliar age is past. We are living in the post-Summorum Pontificum era.

Trust in the Lord. Be at Peace. Just as the abuse crisis, in the Time and Providence of God, could no longer be kept quiet, the issues that the SSPX rightfully raises can and will no longer be kept quiet. Summorum Pontificum guaranteed that as nothing else has, including even the valiant efforts of the SSPX itself.

This is God's Church, not ours. God is in control. Trust him, and come back into full communion with His Church.

RumorZ

By Patrick Archbold

For the record from Father John Zuhlsdorf:
Before reading this, I am getting it second hand and also I have no way to get separate confirmation. So, we have to take this for what it is worth. It’s up to you.

Here is one sentence of the three sentence message I edited it to fix the English:

I´m back from Econe. I spoke with some people. Rome has accepted a response and wrote back positively. All is going well … this was said by Castrillon.

Remember that Card. Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei gave Five Conditions to Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX.

Read the rest >>>>

Saturday, June 28, 2008

It's Not Over 'Til It's Over

By Patrick Archbold

From Rorate:
The Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, granted today an interview to Gino Driussi, of RTSI (the Italian-language Swiss public radio), providing some very enlightening answers:

...
[17:45][Fellay:] Perhaps it is false to say, in such a way, directly, that I reject, that I propose a total rejection [of the conditions], that is not true. Rather, I see in this ultimatum a very vague, confused thing. But, in fact, I have already written a response and we will see how Rome will react.
...
[18:53] [Fellay:] For me, this ultimatum has no sense, because we have relations with Rome which go forward in a certain speed, which is truly slow. And it is true, on the other hand, that both the Cardinal [Castrillón Hoyos] and the Holy Father would wish for a rather accelerated speed. For me, the only meaning of this ultimatum is the expression of this desire of Rome to give it a little bit of hastiness. Therefore, for me, it is not a reconsideration of all our relations.

[Interviewer:] "Then, you expect to continue in the dialogue, thus?"

[Fellay:] Yes, yes, it is possible that there will now be a time of more, of coolness, but, frankly, for me, it is not over, no.

Sic Semper Insanus?

By Patrick Archbold

From Rorate:
"The Fraternity has no intention to respond to this ultimatum," Father Alain Lorans, spokesman of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, declared to the AFP by telephone from Ecône (Switzerland).

"We do not foresee any practical or canonical agreement before having considered the doctrinal questions which came about after Vatican II," [...].

"Bishop Bernard Fellay [Superior General of the Fraternity] is surprised with the existing gap between the procedure of the ultimatum and the content of this ultimatum, which remains very uncertain," Father Lorans added.
...

According to Father Lorans, the Superior General of the Fraternity, Bishop Fellay, wrote a letter to Vatican authorities on Thursday.
Apparently a letter written to the Vatican in the wake of the request of the Holy See does not count as a response.

Sic semper insanus?

Friday, June 27, 2008

Another SSPX bishop undermines efforts at rapproachment

By Brian Kopp

Rorate Caeli has an excerpt of a sermon by Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), for the ceremony of ordinations which took place this morning in Ecône:
Galarreta: "We will not follow it"; Let us "follow the steps"

The ultimatum of the Cardinal: to call this an "ultimatum" is to say too much. It is, for us, a desire to alarm us, to build pressure for a purely practical agreement. This way which they wish to impose upon us is a dead way and we will not follow it. We cannot commit [engager] to betray the profession of Faith nor to let ourselves be signed up for a demolition venture.

Our response to the Holy Father is thus to follow the steps with the known prerequisites and a doctrinal discussion. This will produce this answer: either a pause or a stagnation in our contacts with Rome, or a new condemnation - and we ask ourselves what -, or a withdrawal of the excommunications.
Is this kind of insubordination indicative of the SSPX culture in general? Are traditional Catholics within the SSPX willing to accept this wholesale and continued undermining of the Superior General's prerogative in regard to answering "The Five Conditions"?

Williamson: Rejoice at Formal Schism

By Patrick Archbold

Bishop Richard Williamson has persistently been the most hard line of the leadership of the SSPX. Over the past days there has been much talk about the pre-conditions set by Rome for some sort of gesture toward the SSPX seeking to heal rift between them and the Church.

Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, has cast doubts about whether the SSPX will respond positively to the five conditions in some remarks made last week in a speech.

Bishop Fellay's comments are reasonable and temperate compared to Bishop Richard Williamson. It is difficult to impossible to know the internal politics of the SSPX being played out in public, but Bishop Williamson seems absolutely determined to insure that the SSPX does not respond positively to the request on Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos. Brian Kopp, writing here explores some of the political possibilities of what may be happening behind the scenes at the SSPX. One thing is for certain, however, Williamson is determined to derail the entire process.

Bishop Williamson, writing on his blog, not only throws cold water on the prospects of reunification but relishes the idea of being declared in open schism, calling it a cause for celebration.
However, when in the next few days the Society makes no gesture towards Rome sufficient for Rome's purpose of dissolving the resistance of Catholic Tradition, I am for my part not at all sure that Rome will really go ahead with any declaration of formal schism. Maybe after eight, or 20, or 38 years of the Society's resistance they really are losing patience, but does not all past experience tell them that each time they use the stick, it stiffens rather than dissolves that resistance?

And if they did go ahead with such a declaration [of schism], Catholics should rejoice, because after several years of some ambiguity there would once more be some clarity ! Twenty years ago, all Society Superiors gathered in Econe rejoiced in their bishops' "excommunication". Would not the same thing happen this time round if Rome also cast priests and laity into its outer darkness ? Not that any of us would rejoice in Rome's self-abasement.
It is time for Bishop Fellay to put an end to such talk by one the leaders of the SSPX. If there is ever to be any hope of reconciliation Williamson should be formally censured or expelled from the SSPX. Being declared in formal schism is a cause for joy for this man, a badge of honor.

Further the priests of the society, if this offer is rejected, should seek reconciliation with Rome on an individual basis for if you don't, you are now allied with a group that openly relishes the idea of schism. Nothing remotely catholic about that.

This goes double for the faithful. The Church has its problems, no doubt, but if you stay allied with the SSPX at this point, you are most certainly part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Bishop Fellay, please do the right thing and say yes to the Pope and no to Williamson. Souls depend on it.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Are "The Five Conditions" necessary? Part 2

By Brian Kopp

With his most recent blog entry, Bishop Williamson confirms yet again the Vatican's wisdom in extending "The Five Conditions" as a precursor to the lifting of the SSPX excommunications and further efforts at rapproachment.

It used to be that one could at least ignore the insane rantings of the sedevacantists when they wove conspiracy theories, but now one has to seriously wonder about charges they have made in the past regarding conflicts between SSPX bishops. (Please, continue to ignore their other insane rantings!)

Which leads to some troubling possibilities. Either

1) Bishop Fellay is playing "good cop" to Bishop Williamson's "bad cop," and this is simply a disingenuous two part act on the part of these SSPX bishops, or
2) Bishop Williamson is a loose cannon over whom Bishop Fellay has no control, or
3) Bishop Williamson is actively trying to undermine Bishop Fellay's efforts.

In any case, how then is the behavior of these bishops any different than that of the cast of characters our Holy Father must deal with every day, and which side is "untrustworthy" in these proceedings?

Its one thing to claim "Rome" is not to be trusted due to their history of treatment of traditional Catholics, especially Archbishop Lefebvre et al. Its another thing altogether for one SSPX bishop to so publicly undermine the Superior General of the SSPX at such a delicate time in the Church.

Williamson Comments on Reunification

By Patrick Archbold

The sad comments of someone bent on schism.

Reprinted from Williamson's Blog
Rumors abound once more: before the end of June, in other words in a few days' time, either the Society of St. Pius X will begin to give way to Rome's demands to conform to Vatican II and the New Mass, or Rome will declare to Church and world that the Society and its followers are in formal schism and out of the Church.

As to rumors of the Society taking any action that would imperil the defense of the Faith, I think they are to be wholly discounted. On May 5 of 1988 in particular, Archbishop Lefebvre went as far as the Faith would allow him, and even a little bit further, to come to terms with the Church authorities, but their terms finally persuaded him that they could no longer be trusted to look after the Church's immutable Tradition, which is why he went ahead with the episcopal consecrations of 20 years ago.

Similarly, ever since the Society's Jubilee Pilgrimage to Rome in 2000, the Society has gone as far as it could to correspond to the goodwill gestures of Cardinal Castrillon, and even a little bit further, but in eight years it has never given to the Cardinal that abandonment of the Society's stand on Tradition that he wanted. On the contrary, the latest Letter to Friends and Benefactors of the Society's Superior General reiterated firmly that stand, which is surely where the rumors come from of the Cardinal losing patience with his eight years of carrot, and turning once more to the stick.

Catholics should in no way be frightened by any threat of being declared formally, i.e. properly and officially, in schism, or out of the Church. Proper Catholic officialdom would judge, like Our Lord tells us to judge (Jn. VII,24), by reality and not by appearances. The reality is obvious: it is the Conciliar "Renovation" and not Catholic Tradition that has broken with the Catholic Church.

However, when in the next few days the Society makes no gesture towards Rome sufficient for Rome's purpose of dissolving the resistance of Catholic Tradition, I am for my part not at all sure that Rome will really go ahead with any declaration of formal schism. Maybe after eight, or 20, or 38 years of the Society's resistance they really are losing patience, but does not all past experience tell them that each time they use the stick, it stiffens rather than dissolves that resistance?

And if they did go ahead with such a declaration, Catholics should rejoice, because after several years of some ambiguity there would once more be some clarity ! Twenty years ago, all Society Superiors gathered in Econe rejoiced in their bishops' "excommunication". Would not the same thing happen this time round if Rome also cast priests and laity into its outer darkness ? Not that any of us would rejoice in Rome's self-abasement... Kyrie eleison.

Munich, Germany
Posted by Bishop Richard Williamson

Scousers Rejoice!

By Patrick Archbold

From the Catholic Herald: Liverpool Diocese to create first parish for traditional Mass.
Archbishop Patrick Kelly of Liverpool is preparing to create Britain's first parish dedicated to celebrations of the traditional Latin Mass.

The archbishop is planning to revive an ailing parish in Liverpool's inner city by turning it into a centre for traditionalists.

He is following the example set by the Diocese of Rome, which set up a parish dedicated exclusively to Mass in the extraordinary form earlier this year.

The Church of St Vincent de Paul, St James Street, Toxteth, will become a traditionalist parish as early as September if the plans are approved by the archdiocese.

Read the rest >>>>

As deadline looms, still no surprises...

By Brian Kopp

Rorate Caeli has an unsurprising excerpt posted:
Williamson: "Our answer will be negative"
"I appreciated the tone of the letter of Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, but I frankly believe that nothing will be done and that our answer will be negative."
There's lots of conjecture going on about who might have leaked "The Five Conditions."

Regardless of who leaked them, Bishop Williamson's making this public statement, prior to Bishop Fellay making a formal response as leader of the SSPX, is truly reprehensible.

If you have not yet done so, please read and heed these posts at WDTPRS and TNLM:
PRAY! PRAY NOW! - 2
Urgent Appeal for Prayers