(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Society of St Pius X – District of Asia
SECOND CANONICAL MONITION
TO THE REVEREND FRANCOIS CHAZAL
Dear Fr. Chazal,
On 8 June 2012 a penal precept and a first canonical monition were issued, with the accord of the Superior General and his Council, in the hope that you would realize the gravity of the actions, declarations, and publications which have been the cause of grave scandal and great spiritual damage for our faithful and for our apostolate.
This document was hand-delivered to you by Fr. Thomas Onoda on 9 June 2012. That very day you violated the interdiction of the penal precept by flying to Hong Kong, and then to Korea and to Japan, against explicit orders not to do so.
In Korea, on 10 June 2012, you preached a sermon called “What’s Next”, which you publicized in the Internet. This same document, as well as your other document “War On”, you have also subsequently distributed in Tanay and Baguio Mass centers, and you have displayed “What’s Next” in Our Lady of Victories Church, in Manila, on Sunday morning 22 July 2012. Two other documents of yours, “I accuse the Counsel” and “I Excuse the Council” have just been put on the Internet as well.
I am hereby issuing a second and final canonical monition according to can. 697 C.I.C. 1983/ can. 660 C.I.C. 1917, asking you to submit to the penal precept of 8 June 2012. If you violate its terms once more, the Superior General will institute penal proceedings leading to your dismissal from our Society for stubborn disobedience to legitimate orders in a grave matter and for grave scandal resulting for culpable behavior, according to can. 696 C.I.C. 1983/ can. 656 C.I.C. 1917, and to the particular law of the Society of St. Pius X (cf. General Chapter 2006, Cor Unum n. 85; Modifications to the Statutes, 4).
You have already been notified of your right under the law to self-defense, including a canonical counsel. You have the right as well to present to the Superior General, in person or in writing, your defense against this second canonical monition and the proposed dismissal within fifteen days of receipt of this document. All your communications and responses will be given due consideration in the process.
Given at Manila, July 31, 2012
Fr. Daniel Couture
In the presence of Fr. Michael Fortin
+Vienna, Virginia, 06 August 2012
Dear Father Couture,
The blade is now about to fall. You have kindly notified me that I may present a defense before the Superior General before that action is taken. I would be grateful to you if you would convey to him this – my last defense against the accusation of “stubborn disobedience” and “grave scandal”, resulting from “culpable behavior”.
There is no need for me to present again my case of evidence of a clear change of stance concerning Vatican II, now viewed as a fixable or bypassable Council; or the dangerous failure to denounce today’s “Magisterium”; or the desire to place the SSPX under the ongoing fornicating new rome, not to mention the new possibilities of placing our houses under the local dioceses, as well as other practical surrenders.
Since May of this year, no attempt at resolving these differences has been successful, and no written refutation of the four documents “War On”, “What Next”, “I Excuse”, and “I Accuse” has been made thus far, isolating my arguments and evidence, and then refuting them.
I would think, in the interest of your cause, that it would be better for you to do so now; otherwise, you might show the world that your best argument is the guillotine. As a result, many priests of the Society who clearly agree with what I have said in the four documents, will be left without doctrinal protection against what you view as a “great scandal” and thus be further encouraged to disagree with Menzingen as I will stand as a punished witness to a yet unrefuted stance.
But the sole “War On” document alone, some say, contains 33 arguments, and the whole case rests essentially on the fact that modernist rome and its actions are still deeply steeped in heresy.
That is why I have lost all expectation that you would issue such a refutation, which in turn opens another question: Is the publication of such a dissenting line from the party line of Menzingen, in all possible forms – pulpit, print, speech, internet, beard, red sash, etc. – a “great scandal” and a “great damage” and a grave disobedience to the Society?
The answer to such a question is yours, because you know so well that our founder did much more than I do. He dared to stand against Popes, Councils, Bishops worldwide and theologians.
Therefore my condemnation will make sense if the content of these four public documents is erroneous, and I do believe that I was always glad to obey my superiors until this crisis.
Lastly, I would like to complete my defense with Our Lady. To this day, I still do not understand how the piety of our faithful towards Her was chosen as an instrument for the reconciliation plans. And is there an awareness that the man who will process the reconciliation plans is the prefect of the CDF, a man notorious for his denial of Mother Mary’s virginity? I have heard from the Horse’s Mouth (the First Assistant) that we cannot build our plans on a miraculous triumph of Our Lady above the institution of the Papacy; I remember that Benedict XVI is the most recent chief plotter of the burial of the message of Fatima, and, in the end, instead of Our Lady choosing the time and nature of Her Triumph, we will tell Her what the circumstances are that She must follow and supposedly this is how the papacy will convert.
Indeed, if you choose to deny me proper trial and examination, I shall rejoice at the fall of the blade.
Reverenter ac devote,
In Iesu et Maria,
|Posted Aug 8, 2012, 11:26 pm
Ignored by: 0