.


Thread highlights for latecomers:

People talk from their own experiences. This priest is speaking about his own failings. He sounds like he is not well in the mind.

How does he know that he is not as he describes others, or is he speaking about himself too?

With all the transfers of priests and district superiors going on,
it would seem that this Winona rector is making an embarrassment
of himself and of the seminary with this letter and he will then
be transferred come the fall, to avoid more egg-on-the-face
than there already is.  

If he is NOT transferred, we have here a lot of goodies to
hurl right back at Menzingen to show the mean-spiritedness
of the seminary leadership and what therefore we can all
expect of seminarians who come out of it.  

We can have a FIELD DAY with scripts demonstrating the
in-fighting and skirmishes of seminarians who are competing
with each other to imitate their rector, Fr. le Roux in all manner
of activities and correspondence.  It would be most
entertaining.  

Let the games begin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...Projection has been a hallmark of the anti-Resistance since its beginning but this incidence of it takes the cake.

Quote from: For Greater Glory

Columba,
     
     Am I understanding you correctly? Are these seminarians being asked to leave because they won't follow the party line? If so, shameful and what is to be the future of the SSPX!

I know that some seminarians have been ordered to take leave of Winona for a year or two to attend secular university, but can only speculate on the reasons why.

...There is much that is clearly implied in this letter.
...Of what possible benefit is there for a future priest to attend a secular cesspool university?

Thank you, J.Paul for this question.  We need to think about it -- long and hard!

Perhaps this is just a gentle way to show them the door. Could they have asked their superiors the wrong questions[?] This truly needs to be investigated to ascertain the truth of the matter.


This letter and this information are very disturbing.

I would like to extend to you my appreciation, hollingsworth, for this
post, below.  There is a lot to think about here, and those of us who
have the respect and influence of young men who are considering
entering Winona ought to think really HARD about what to say to them,
for this might be our only chance.  Imagine, years later, if they were to
come to you and say,

"Why didn't you warn me if you knew there was
a problem going on in the summer of 2013?"

This is pretty disturbing stuff. If I had a boy in the seminary now, I think my advice would be something as follows:  "Son, maybe you'd better come home for awhile.  Go to work for a couple of years, and then, if you feel so inclined, go back in.  There are some disturbing things going on at Winona."

Why does Fr. le Roux use the 1st person plural throughout?  He doesn't single out the "resistance."  He is implying that we, including himself, are all compliant in this.  Is this a veiled 'mea culpa?'

FGG posted an attempt at continuing the copy but 'hit the wall,' as I did
and was unable to continue.  That makes two of us.  There is something
to be said for this.  Two rank-and-file Catholic laymen trying to help out,
cannot find the STOMACH to type out the words of a priest.  Need I say
more?  Think about it.  Something is amiss here............

To continue Father le Roux's newsletter:

    "Let us point out the characteristics of these perpetual criticisms. The word or actions of our neighbor are interpreted according to how he makes us feel, his relationship to us, and our own standard of 'truth.'

    "Isn't it usual to disguise our calumnies with high and noble considerations? Who would suspect such a deceit when it is covered by the sublime garments of gravity? Let us be serious! We do not seek the truth and we employ great words, with a feigned tone and air of sadness, only to try to hide the inconsistency of our judgment and our own animosity. Who couldn't see, indeed, in this cowardly evasion, an obvious acknowledgment of our own misery?

    "Our intelligence, enslaved to pride by our ceaseless criticisms, is not capable any more of posing an act of right judgment on our neighbor. Our feelings, from now on rulers of our life, dictate our sentences. We do not have any more what Bergson so nicely called 'the courtesy of the intelligence,' this capacity of understanding that our neighbor is not a clone of ourselves and that his views are not in all points identical to ours. Thus, the critics joyfully fall upon members of their own families, upon the school teachers in the presence of the children, or upon consecrated souls, adding in this last case an insidious and disparaging mockery.

    "The deeper we descend into this hypocrisy, the more pleasure we take in spreading our venom. We come to enjoy striking anonymously when our victim has his back turned. When we stop striving to follow the light of our intellects, we will become lost in the gloomy haze of our own emotions - mistaking fireflies and sparks of anger for the light of truth. Dominated by our fickle and changing emotions, we become cowards who have lost the ability to be constant in the struggle for truth and the following of reality. Having lost reality and truth, we seek only to make ourselves right at all costs, driven by fear and inability to see the deep reason of things."



         I have to stop typing this. It's making me sick. There's so much wrong with this I wouldn't know where to begin. Does Fr. le Roux really believe these  "great words" of his?    :barf:

(I hope you don't mind, Nicholas, that I made minor adjustments in
your quotation marks to conform to standard editorial convention.)

Neil Obstat:  could you please post the entire newsletter so that we may read it all in context.  

Fr. le Roux:  Could you please issue a clarified edition of your newsletter and state who you are speaking about?  You are a gifted writer, yet in this letter, you paint with a broad brush, leaving many to speculate who you are talking about.  Your use of the word "we" throughout the letter seems to indicate you are speaking of yourself and possibly other members of the SSPX leadership or perhaps all of us.  If you are speaking of yourself and other SSPX leadership, perhaps resignations are next?  

Fr. le Roux, consider this paragraph in your letter:
"Our intelligence has become a barren field because of the supremacy of our feelings over any other consideration...."  You use the word "Our" to begin the sentence, so you are including yourself in this statement, is that correct?  Are you also including the elderly woman who faithfully has supported the SSPX each week over the past 40 years and has sent her widow's mite to you in support of the new seminary?  Has her intelligence become a barren field because of her feelings?

My own thoughts of this newsletter, and forgive me I haven't read all of it, just the portions included on this thread, is that it is an odd placement of an attack just days after the SSPX bold declaration made in conjunction of the 25th anniversary of the consecrations.  Odd also with the recent revelations of a PR company engaged to assist the Society in making itself more likable.  

Now I may be wrong, and probably am, but on the heels of the 25th anniversary declaration, this hit piece appears to place both as attempts to destroy the Resistance.  I hope I am wrong.  The Resistance is composed of good priests and laity whose consciences would not allow them to compromise when asked to do so.  Plain and simple.  

For me to "post the entire newsletter" I would have to type it out.  

Sorry, I'm not going to do that.  If these were the words of a holy man
writing a commendable work, it would be no problem. I have had absolutely
no trouble typing out the words of Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Girouard, Fr. Hewko, +W,
and other Resistance priests, but this, of Fr. le Roux, I have a problem
with it.  It would actually be an occasion of sin for me to do it because
of the contents of his deplorable words.  

I have done enough here.  Maybe someone can scan it in for you.  It's
not worth your consideration IMHO.  I posted these 3 paragraphs for
what they are and the rest is no better, but for me, even less tolerable
for me.





It's like going to a HEBF* speech and feeling afterwards like you need
a bath, asking yourself, "Why did I waste my time?"  





*His Eagerness B. Fellay

P. S.   I know a very good priest who advised someone to get his education with the SSPX and then go elsewhere, but suppose your receiving an education with a little liberalism mixed in? :thinking: