8 Mars 2013:

From <http://www.lasapiniere.info/rectificatif/>

Rectificatif au sujet du Communiqué du Supérieur du District de France à propos de la lettre du 28 février à Mgr Fellay

Une lettre partagée par 37 prêtres du district de France a bien été postée sur le site La Sapinière. Les vérités qu’elles contiennent ont manifestement fort déplu à la Maison Générale qui a décidé de sanctionner trois prêtres parmi les trente-sept l’approuvant. Leur crime: ne pas supporter les mensonges de la Maison Générale.
 
Elle les somme au nom du canon 2331 § 2 de cesser leur ministère et d’être mis en quarantaine jusqu’à un procès où celui que nous accusons deviendra aussi notre juge. C’est-à-dire que Mgr Fellay sera juge et partie.
 Nous ne connaissons aucun canon du Droit de l’Eglise qui permette de mentir. Nous connaissons par contre le 8e commandement de Dieu qui l’interdit.
 Tout le contenu de la lettre du 28 février est vrai et vérifiable. La Maison Générale, gênée, a d’abord dit qu’il s’agissait d’un faux, que cette lettre ne pouvait pas venir de prêtres. Devant les faits, on cherche à faire croire « qu’il s’agissait là d’une affabulation».
 Nous n’avons rien « contre l’autorité de la Fraternité », à laquelle nous devons tout, nous voulons simplement que la Maison Générale cesse de déformer la réalité et de favoriser un libéralisme pratique.
 Quoiqu’ils en disent, il n’y a pas « qu’un très petit nombre » de prêtres qui souhaitent « la démission de ses Supérieurs »!
 
Trois prêtres ont été sanctionnés, certes, mais cela ne change rien aux faits. Le problème reste entier. Nous refusons l’accusation du Secrétaire Général. Nous avons toujours justifié nos sources. Nous n’avons commis ni calomnies, ni diffamations, ni amalgames. Si nous nous sommes résolus à manifester le mal fait par le Supérieur Général et ses Assistants, ce n’est qu’après avoir consulté saint Thomas et des autorités morales de la Fraternité. Notre but est de faire cesser le scandale de la politique trouble et ambiguë de la Maison Générale.
 Notre « attitude » ne se fonde pas « sur rien d’objectif », au contraire! Nous ne nous sommes pas « laissés emporter par une méfiance irraisonnée contre l’autorité de la Fraternité ». Les raisons de notre inquiétude sont non seulement raisonnées mais argumentées et résumées dans le « Catéchisme de la Crise dans la Fraternité».
 
Nous ne doutons pas de la rectitude doctrinale du Supérieur du District de France, mais nous constatons qu’il n’est plus libre d’écrire ce qu’il pense. Il doit tordre sa conscience pour exempter son Supérieur de ses défaillances afin de pouvoir prêcher la doctrine.
 Sans la lettre du 28 février des 37 prêtres, Mgr Fellay aurait-il donné cette conférence à Nantes le 1er mars de cette manière ?
 La Lettre aux amis et bienfaiteurs de mars aurait-elle obtenue l’autorisation de publication de Menzingen sans cet ajout de l’abbé de Cacqueray, qui jure avec la beauté du reste de son texte, ajout où celui-ci exprime à Mgr Fellay sa « reconnaissance pour son refus courageux qu’il a adressé au pape. » Ici nous ne sommes plus dans la rectitude doctrinale mais dans les marécages de la diplomatie.
 
La Sapinière continuera son travail. Est est, Non non.!
 
Nous ne haïssons personne, ni Mgr Fellay quoique sa duplicité nous effraye, ni l’abbé de Cacqueray pour qui nous avons la plus grande estime. Mais à tous les deux, et à tous les capitulants qui au lieu de résoudre vraiment le problème au chapitre de juillet 2012 n’ont fait que le cacher et le cautionner en partie, nous leur disons ces paroles du Lieutenant Degueldre à ses bourreaux avant d’être fusillé : « je ne vous hais pas, je vous plains ».
 
Abbé Olivier Rioult>, Fsspx,
un des trois prêtres sanctionnés.

Translation into English:
March 8th 2013:

Correction about the Communiqué of the District Superior of France on the letter to Bishop Fellay of February 28th

A letter, shared by 37 priests of the district of France has well been posted on the website of La Sapinière. The truths that they contain displeased very much the General House, which decided to punish three priests among the thirty-seven ones. Their crime: not supporting the lies of the General House.

It [the General House] commands them, based on the canon 2331 § 2 to stop their ministry and to be quarantined until the next lawsuit, where the one we accuse will also become our judge. It means that Bishop Fellay will be judge and party at the same time.

We don’t know any canon of the law of the Church which permits to lie. On the other hand, We know the 8th commandment of God which forbids it.

All the contents of the letter of the 28th of February is true and verifiable. The General House, embarrassed, first said it was a fake, that this letter couldn’t come from priests. In front of such facts [described by the letter], it is well aimed [by Father de Cacqueray] to have people believe “it was just a confabulation”.

We have nothing “against the authority of the Society”, to which we owe everything; we just want the General House to stop misrepresenting the truth and being in favor for a practical liberalism.

Whatever they say, there is not but “a few priests” who wish “the resignation of their superiors”!

Three priests have been punished, of course, but this doesn’t change anything to the facts. The whole problem is still there. We refuse the accusation of the General Secretary. We have always justified our sources. We have committed no slander, no defamation, no hodgepodge. If we are decided to reveal the evil done by the General Superior and his assistants, this is only after asking (and praying) Saint Thomas and the moral authorities of the Society. Our aim is to have this scandal of the blurry and ambiguous policy of the General House stopped.

Our “attitude” is not grounded on “nothing objective”, on the contrary! We have not been “moved by irrational distrust against the authority of the Society”. The reasons of our worries are not only reasoned but have good arguments and summed up in the “catechism of the crisis in the Society”.

We don’t doubt of the doctrinal rectitude of the District Superior of France, but we notice that he is no more free to write what he thinks.  He has to twist his conscience in order to exempt his Superior from his deviations, so that he may be able to preach the doctrine.

Without the letter of February 28 of the 37 priests, would Bishop Fellay have given this conference in Nantes on March 1st in this way?

Would the letter to friends and benefactors of the month of March have obtained the permission for publication from Menzingen, without this “gratitude to him for this courageous refusal that he addressed to the pope”. Here we are no longer in the doctrinal rectitude but in the swamps of diplomacy.

La Sapinière will continue its work. Est est, Non non!

We hate nobody, neither Bishop Fellay, though his duplicity scares us, nor Father de Cacqueray to whom we have the highest esteem. But to both of them, and to all the chapter members who, instead of truly solving the problem at the Chapter back then in July 2012, only hid and backed it, we say to them those words of the Lieutenant Degueldre to his executioners, before being shot: “I don’t hate you, I just feel sorry for you.”

Father Olivier Rioult>, SSPX
One the 3 punished priests

There's a few mistakes in La Sapiniere's translation.

"sanctionné" means punished, prohibited, etc - in English it means to allow or permit, virtually the exact opposite.

"...who even in part cautioned it. [the General Chapter] "
"cautioned it" in this context makes no sense. "Cautionner" here means to approve or endorse.

Sorry, but I'm something of a pedant. If I weren't I wouldn't be half as much use to anyone. And it irritates me when we get a translation out a few hours after someone else and we overlap. It's a wasted effort on the part of one of us.

Here's our rendering of it:

http://www.therecusant.com/fr-rioult-reply-to-fr-decaq

A joint letter from 37 priests from the French District was indeed posted on the website La Sapinière. The truths this letter contained have visibly displeased the General House which has decided to punish three priests from among the 37 who approved it. Their crime:  a refusal to put up with the General House’s lies.


The General House commands, in the name of Canon 2331 § 2, that the three priests cease their ministries and be put into quarantine until a trial in which he whom we accuse will also be our judge. In other words, Bp. Fellay will be both judge and plaintiff. We know no Church canon law which permits lying. We do know the 8th Commandment of God forbidding it.


The entire content of the 28th February letter is true and can be verified. The General House, troubled, at first spoke of the letter being a forgery and that it could not originate from priests. Faced with the facts, they are now trying to make everyone believe it is a “fable”. We have nothing “against the authority of the Society” to which we owe everything, we simply want the General House to stop distorting reality and favoring a practical liberalism. No matter what they say, there is not “only a small number” of priests who wish for “their superiors’ resignation”!

 

Three priests have been punished, true, but that changes nothing concerning the facts. The problem remains. We reject the accusation of the General Secetary. We have always justified our sources. We have committed neither calumny, nor defamation, nor amalgam. If we are resolved to denounce the wrongs of the Superior General and his assistants, it is only after having consulted Saint Thomas and moral authorities of the Society. Our aim is to halt the scandal of the troubling and ambiguous policies of the General House.


Our “attitude” is not founded upon “nothing objective”, quite the contrary! We have not “allowed ourselves to succuмb to an irrational mistrust against the authority of the Society”. The reasons for our concerns are not only reasoned they are argued and put forward in the “Catechism of the crisis in the SSPX”.


We do not doubt the doctrinal rectitude of the French District Superior, but we have to admit that he is no longer free to write what he thinks. It would seem he has to twist his conscience to exempt his superior of his faults in order to be allowed to preach doctrine. Without the letter of 28th February from 37 priests, would  Bp. Fellay have given the conference the way he did in Nantes on the 1st March?  Would the March 2013 “Letter to Friends and Benefactors” have been authorized by Menzingen without Fr de Cacqueray expessing his gratitude to Bp. Fellay “for the courageous refusal he sent to the pope”? This is no longer doctrinal rectitude but the swampland of diplomacy.


La Sapinière will continue its work. Est est, Non non!


We detest no one, neither Bp. Fellay however much his duplicity fills us with dread, nor Fr. de Cacqueray for whom we have the greatest esteem. To both of them and to each of the Capitulants who instead of truly resolving the problem at the General Chapter in July 2012 only hid it and even in part endorsed it, we offer the words which Lieutenant Degueldre offered his executioners before being shot: “I have no hate for you, I pity you”.

 

Fr Olivier Rioult, FSSPX

One of the three punished priests

Hope that's worth something.

To the recusant, sorry.

I know that my English is not perfect. The translation was made quite quickly.

Regards.