The Pope revokes the sentence of excommunication upon the Lefebvrists

[fpb]

I am horrified. Of all the unwelcome, untimely, ill-conceived, unnecessary, insulting and disastrous measures Pope Benedict could have taken, this is the worst. On the very week that the most anti-Catholic and pro-abortion President has taken office in Washington DC, the Pope seems to indicate that open flirtations with Le Pen and Pinochet, notorious sympathies for Petain, open Jew-bashing of the vilest sort, are no obstacle to reconciliation with Rome. Thos of us who try to fight on a principled opposition to abortion and murder in all its forms have now had a ton of banana oil poured under our feet; any opponent of Catholic teaching will be able to raise the ugly spectre of Marcel "Marechal a nous!" Lefebvre, and the horrible living presence of Richard Williamson, whose moral and intellectual sins go even beyond his obscene denial of the Holocaust and belief in the Protocols. And what about Catholic leadership among Christians? For the last few decades, the mere force of events had driven many Christian bodies closer together, to discover that they shared so much of morality and belief, and against that dictatorship of relativism against which the Pope himself spoke such memorable words. And now, for the sake of a few hundred thousand obstinate, wilful and often bizarre schismatics, who never did anything on their own to earn or even encourage reunion, and who positively insulted the last two Popes, all this common ground, all this real and verifiable growth together, is endangered; because most Christians will see the Lefebvrists for what they are. Just because Richard Williamson is such an ugly caricature of the worst sort of traditionalists, real conservatives, let alone middle and liberals, will want nothing to do with him. How many Protestants and Anglicans in search of a decent Christian centre away from the various heresies and schisms of their own confessions will have seen this as confirmation that everything they had been told about Rome was in fact true? I am willing to bet that the conversion of adults will slow down considerably. And what about the Church itself? This act has been taken as much on the Pope's own decision as the famous Motu Proprio that sought to reinstate the Latin Mass. If the one can be described as reactionary, ill-advised, insensitive to Jew-bashing and admiration for tyrants, then so can the other. Far from strengthening the conservative side of the Church, the Pope has just delivered them a vial of poison. And at the same time, he has done nothing to please liberals, many of whom will read this to mean that one hard-right soul is more important to the Pope than one left-wing one, and either leave or reinforce even further their "inner schismatic" position. I will not leave the Church - I know how many like Williamson there are already; but many others may. There is absolutely no upside to this decision; every aspect of it is completely mistaken.

God help the Church. Mother of Victory, pray for us.

Comments

[lyssiae.livejournal.com]

That's some kind of vitriol against the Holy Father that surprises me from you!

I most likely know much less about this than you, but it seems to me that in lifting those excommunications the Pope has not said that Bp. Williamson's views are permissable. I've read other viewpoints from people within or somehow connected to SSPX that consider him a bit of a nutcase. But being a nutcase - well, the Church has (had) several of those.

What should the Holy Father have done, postponed this? And let Bp. W's silly tirade get in the way of a movement towards reconciliation? That's just letting the unfortunate bishop have his own way - he spews out whatever it is he wants to, and ooooooo Rome doesn't like SSPX anymore, Nasty Nasty Rome.

The problems are not entirely solved, and I agree with Damian Thompson insofar that the Pope is taking a big risk. But, you know, we all take risks when it comes to following Christ. This daring step - foolish in your eyes - is something Papa would not do rashly. Either he knows much more about everything than we do (which is likely the case anyway), including how this is going to turn out, or he is partially stepping into the unknown and trusting that Christ's Spirit will lead him on.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Let me put it as clear as I can. These people are an offshoot of the old Action Francaise, condemned by Popes Pius X and XI. They are Fascists. They are racist (Lefebvre himself resigned his archbishopric of Dakar over the issue of appointing native clergy). They are unbelievably arrogant; time and time again, Fellay, their leader, has treated the Pope as though the Pope were the one who had to crawl before him - and that was when he was not teaching that the Pope was a heretic. A recent paper by Williamson charges the whole Catholic Church with the Adoptionist heresy. These people have not done anything to deserve to be in the Church. And Pope Benedict's unilateral lifting of a thrice-deserved sentence of excommunication carries the message that there is nothing wrong or sinful about any of this.

The only people to rejoice at this are the enemies of the Church. You are in the Netherlands - you will see and hear it. And unfortunately, it will have been deserved. Granted that there already are Fascist maniacs in the Church - I have one as parish priest, for my sins - does that mean that we have to go look for them in the hedges and fields?

[dustthouart.livejournal.com]

Sadly, I have to agree. The Holy Father has let his desire for unity overcome all other considerations.

I have prayed for reconciliation of the SSPX, but not like this, without the slightest hint of repentance on their side. Instead I have already seen many SSPX supporters crowing that this proves the excommunications were invalid all along.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You are exactly right, and I should have mentioned this feature of it. It will reinforce their vanity, their sense of superiority to all other Christians, and all their wandering and extreme views. As if the Church did not have the Devil's own plenty of arrogant, self-serving, obsessive fanatics as it is. It will make them more rather than less likely to stick to their condemned attitudes, and it will bring them closer to rather than further from Hell when they die. Misguided forgiveness can be as deadly as the worst injustice - even if you did not argue that it was itself injustice - and Jesus never commanded it.

[dustthouart.livejournal.com]

PS I would put some line breaks in your post, to make it easier to read. Right now it's a bit hard on the eyes.

[dustthouart.livejournal.com]

PPS I would add that the timing of the announcement is doubtless due to this being the Week of Christian Unity.

The timing of Williamson's remarks, someone on catholicism said, are probably due to the devil. I agree with that.

[kishiriadgr.livejournal.com]

Came over to read the comments, from which I'm learning a lot.

Unrelated, YOUR ICON IS SO CUTE IT MAKES ME SQUEEEEEE!

[rfachir.livejournal.com]

Prayer sent (and sending). And my prayers get answered especially well when the world is heaving.
Thanks for the news and please continue the updates. I have not kept up with "hater" politics and I am afraid our new leadership in this country especially makes me more afraid of new "frenemies" than ever. And it is always better to operate from a base of logic and knowledge, not fear.

[filialucis]

Wow. Fabio, for someone who generally comes across as a more nuanced thinker than most people, you've certainly gone all-out to tar the entirety of the SSPX with the same brush, haven't you?

"A few hundred thousand... schismatics"? Officials in high places in the Vatican have repeatedly and explicitly stated that even the SSPX priests are not in schism, never mind the lay people who only attend their Masses. Apparently you've decided you know better than the Vatican on this issue -- just as the SSPX claims to know better than the Vatican on the last Council -- and you have divined also that they are all, without exception, raving racists, as against, perhaps, only wanting to be able to attend a reverently celebrated Mass? Come on. This isn't worthy of you.

Yes, Williamson is a lunatic. And the media are going to have a field day with his effusions. But sheesh, do we who support the Church have to pre-emptively bay with the hounds too? They're going to lose interest just as fast, and after they've gone in search of fresher prey, the Church will still be there.

As for the danger of scaring away potential Anglican converts: Depends. Some might be put off as you say. Others out there, who are hanging back because of the awful ways in which the new Mass is celebrated in too many places, might be encouraged by the demonstration of the fact that the old Mass in particular and reverence-in-worship in general are welcome in the Church, and be encouraged to join. (Such people exist, as a look around the blogosphere will show.)

As for what you said in one of your comments, that "These people have not done anything to deserve to be in the Church" -- Fabio, the next time you're at Mass and you hear the words Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum (in whatever language), I implore you, listen to what the words mean. We have none of us done anything to deserve it. Let us not grudge to others the grace that we ought to be grateful for having been given ourselves.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And you are evidently bent on finding some good in the SSPX at all costs. Richard Williamson is there for a reason - said reason being that the founder of the schism was a racist, a Petainist, an impenitent supporter of tyrants and murderers, and ultimately a result of Action Francaise, a movement that had anticipated Fascism and that had been condemned by two Popes. To say that because we all are sinners therefore I should not condemn the likes of Lefebvre and Fellay is like saying that because we all feel lust I should not condemn Gene Robinson. After all, he is a bishop too. Who are we to condemn him? Just because their schism and their heresy smells nicer than his, is no reason to defend it. It is schism; it is heresy; and worst of all, it is thoroughly impenitent, and the Pope's misguided mercy will only have made it more so. What the Devil do we want unchanged, unshriven, unconverted schismatic heretics in the Church for? Because they celebrate nice Latin masses? Let me tell you this: their readmission, unless there are some pretty serious signs of contrition on their part, will lead not to more but to less Latin masses in the greater Church. Because a lot of people like me, who know what kind of Jew-bashing, Fascist-loving, racist, vicious devil lurks in SSPX congregations - and I am not, repeat not, exaggerating - will be less rather than more willing to trust any parish where Latin and incense are in evidence. There are quite enough lunatic reactionaries in the Church; I have one for a parish priest, and I have every reason not to want more. Conservatism is one thing, and Fascism is quite another.

OT

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I just pubished the essay on the relationship between monasticism and the condition of women in my LJ.

[kgbman.livejournal.com]

Calm down. If lifting a decree of excommunication meant the excommunicate was being welcomed back with open arms, then the Orthodox would have all been in communion with Rome for the past forty years. Lifting the decree is only a first step towards eventual reconciliation. Obviously there is still much that needs to be done. (http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/misconceptions-what-the-lifting-of-the-sspx-excoms-means-for-people/)

I would add that it is pure wickedness to want to kick anyone out of the Church or to rejoice in their leaving. I guess you could call me "conservative," but I don't want Catholics who believe women should be ordained or that contraception is perfectly moral to become Episcopalians any more than I want racists, fascists, or other unpleasant types to go into schism. The Church is Christ's, and Christ wants everyone. Can you be a good Catholic and hate the Jews or any of your neighbors for that matter? Maybe not at the end, but we're not at the end; the tares are mixed in with the wheat. If Christ is willing to put up with someone like me until then, I'm willing to put up with them.

[dustthouart.livejournal.com]

Hee, thanks.
I have a thing for cute icons.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, right, we are all sinners so we should all put up with each other's sin. Sorry, I don't buy that. And my basic point is that these people have done nothing whatever to show that they repent even the sin of schism, let alone their various pathologies and hatreds. They are coming in unconverted and unexcused. Whoopee.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The opinion of a skilled and conservative canon lawyer: http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/01/lifting-excommunications-of-june-1988.html

He should calm down too?

[lyssiae.livejournal.com]

I have to say, Dr. Peters at least cites sources, which you do not. He's also concise and uses paragraphs.

I'm not sure there's anything to suggest that the SSPX have held the views you accuse them of. You certainly don't provide anything to support your opinion. And you certainly seem to think you know better than the Holy Father. Where were you in 1988?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

In 1988, I was taking my second year of university here in London. That is beside the point, The nature of Lefebvre and his movement is a known matter. If you want to know what he was about, google "Lille sermon" or "Lille speech". To me, your questions are like someone asking what evidence I have that the BNP is Fascist.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, you seem shocked that I should rebuke the Pope on a matter of policy. The number of saints who did so when they thought right is surely in triple figures. I myself wrote a letter of protest to John Paul II of blessed memory when the Church decided to support Pinochet at the time of his arrest: http://fpb.livejournal.com/221123.html. And in the end, Galatians 2.12. If Peter himself could be rebuked, and rightly so, for failings due to considerations of human policy, how much more his successors! I do not presume to leave the Church; I have no intention to lecture the Pope on the faith; but where a decision is made that strikes me as wrong and damaging, it is my duty, more than my right, to raise my voice so far as it can be heard.

[filialucis]

I see that you have completely ignored the main point I was making, namely that the SSPX is not a monolithic block. Yes, some of their members have been shown to be the kind of despicable racists and revisionists that you justly condemn. But no, it does not follow from this that every single soul in that organisation, every single lay person attending one of their Masses, shares that inexcusable mindset. Unless you can provide hard figures about all their 400-some priests and however many thousands or tens of thousands of Mass-goers to prove that this is the case, you have no right to declare them all guilty by association. Really, I expected better of you.

Re: OT

[filialucis]

Thank you. And perhaps I shall read it some time. Though I must say that the superficiality of your assessment in this post currently has me wondering whether I would find that one rewarding enough to read.

Re: OT

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And the superficiality of your response makes me wonder why I should have wasted my time - except that someone else also had asked me for an essay on the subject. If you don't want to admit that the SSPX is an essentially reactionary body with profound Fascist and jew-bashing features, that is your problem. Facts are facts.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The association is theirs, not mine. They are the ones who have chosen to follow a movement whose foundation speech - the Lille sermon you insist on not reading - included a paean to the then recently enthroned "president" Augusto Pinochet of Chile. As for the current membership: Fellay is an incredibly arrogant man who still even today talks as if it were up to him to dictate terms to the Pope; Tisserand has written a biography of Lefebvre from which, I am told, Petainism drips from every page; and Williamson is what he is. The fourth I know nothing about. Three bishops out of four, including the leader, who should never have been made bishops at all, that's a lot, mademoiselle.

And that is not all. I can say that I never, before you, encountered any Catholic who had dealt with the SSPX without getting a profoundly negative impression. A close friend of mine told me how he had left the Eglish branch of the Society after a brief flirtation - motivated by the usual stuff, bad liturgy, bad politics, etc - when he started being handled tons of incendiary Jew-bashing material, all of it translated from the French. American branches seem more concerned with a ferocious and dictatorial self-enclosure that treats the rest of the world as an enemy and the local parish priest as some omnipotent cult leader; to some of these, Williamson's outburst against The Sound of Music would sound moderate and indeed almost compromising. What study have you made of the SSPX, before you decided that they were nice people?

[filialucis]

If you'll link me to that Lille speech, I'll read it. But if you call me mademoiselle (or equivalent in any known language) ever again, my lad, then I hope you're as good at being on the receiving end of condescension as you are at dishing it out.

Thank you, in any event, for providing at least a smidgeon more detail about the information on which you base your wholesale condemnation of every single person associated with the SSPX. Though, if the sum total of your data is the experiences of one of your friends plus reports of what apparently goes on in American branches, that's still a meagre basis from which to contend, as you apparently continue to do, that they're all filthy racists down to the last obscure Mass-goer in their chapels. It is this generalisation that I'm objecting to; nothing more.

I also need to nip another generalisation in the bud: I have not concluded that "they" are nice people. As in the case of Opus Dei, about whom I've heard so many contradictory eyewitness accounts that you'd think they were referring to completely different organisations, I have no idea who "they" are supposed to be; all I know is what I've been saying from the beginning: they are not a monolithic block. True, some of "them" are the Williamsons and Tissiers of this world, and those who hand out incendiary pamphlets to people like your friend. But for my own part, I've had dealings with a few of their people who, judging from everything I know of them, fail so completely to fit that picture, and whom it would be so grossly off the wall to dismiss as racist maniacs, that I find it wiser to take them individually as I find them and not condemn them all wholesale for the beliefs of their founders and leaders.

That is all I'm saying. Let's be a little more nuanced about this, and not be led by our (entirely correct and justified) hatred of fascism to hang the innocent along with the guilty.

[kgbman.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, right, we are all sinners so we should all put up with each other's sin.

No. I'm saying we should be patient with sinners, just as the Lord is infinitely patient with you. And with me. And with everyone. Read Matthew 18:21-35 carefully and prayerfully, O unmerciful servant.

They are coming in unconverted and unexcused. Whoopee.

The Orthodox haven't submitted to the authority of the Pope. Should the Holy Father excommunicate them again?

[kgbman.livejournal.com]

Well, I should say compared to your post, Dr. Peters is being appropriately hopeful yet cautious.