First, let’s remind ourselves of the doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning how we are to treat suspicions of sin in others.


From John S. Daly's article, "Duties Of Catholics Concerning Their Neighbours' Faults".

We may not:

Believe that our neighbour is guilty of any sin whatsoever when another possibility exists.

Reprove someone for doubtful faults, or with severity when mildness is sufficient.

Treat someone as wicked until the charitable presumption of his goodness has been definitively refuted.

Defame someone without its being certain that what we are saying is true, nor even report a definite sin unless it is necessary to do so; neither may we reveal an unfounded suspicion or an exaggerated suspicion, nor indeed any suspicion at all without necessity.

Generally evaluate the acts and omissions of our neighbour; assign motives, etc., without necessity, or more severely than is necessary.

Attribute to someone a bad motive where another motive, either a good one or a less bad one, is possible.

Suspect the existence of a fault or vice in someone, or doubt his virtue, where we have the reasonable possibility of not forming a judgement or of forming a more favourable judgement.

Report suspicions that are not justified, do so too severely, or do so without necessity.

Attribute a bad motive where a good or less bad motive is possible.

Now, the accusation is that Bishop Fellay lied. That is, that Bishop Fellay spoke against his own mind (i.e. he said something which he knew to be untrue).

Since Bishop Fellay is a fellow Catholic (leaving aside for the moment that he is a cleric, and further, a cleric with episcopal orders), we are obliged to presume that his actions are good. This presumption may be overturned only by certain proof of the contrary. Anything less than such proof would constitute the sin of calumny. Further, even if one became convinced that the allegation was sustained, one would have to demonstrate that a grave reason obliges one to pronounce it publicly, and of course if that were the case, both the proof of the allegation and the grave reason would both need to be given. Otherwise it would be the sin of detraction.

So, for this allegation to be believed, a virtuous man would have to have clear proof that,

1. Bishop Fellay said something which is clearly untrue
2. There is no plausible alternative interpretation of his words
3. He knew that what he said was untrue when he said it

Further, in order to justify the publication of this allegation and its proof, one would have to show that a grave reason exists which demands that the publication take place. Detraction is a serious sin too. Is it possible to oppose Bishop Fellay’s agenda of rallying to the Modernists without relying upon the allegation that he lied? Yes, it is.

Of course, the first thing to be highlighted is that we only have hearsay, second or third hand, for what is meant by the phrase "the rumours from Austria". Nobody who was clear about, and determined to comply with, the teaching of the Church concerning calumny and detraction would be satisfied with a case built upon such data.

Now consider the case here presented. Bishop Fellay is supposed to have said, in a carefully prepared text (the “interview” with DICI), that something was both entirely untrue, and partially true.

To believe that he lied, one is required to believe that he is not merely totally dishonest, but incredibly stupid also. Further, his collaborators at DICI are equally stupid, since they didn’t point out the “obvious” contradiction.

Is a man who is that stupid to be convicted of lying merely because he appears to contradict himself? What standard of judgement would that be? (And whatever standard it is, it's the one to be applied to your own case on Judgement Day.)

Is there a plausible alternative to the allegation that Bishop Fellay lied? Yes.

It is plausible that when he said “Let it be said in passing that what was reported on the Internet concerning my remarks on this subject in Austria last month is entirely false” he meant to deny that an agreement had already been reached which contained those detailed conditions. Such an allegation would indeed have been entirely false, and that allegation was indeed made.

There is another possibility also. It is plausible that when he said “Let it be said in passing that what was reported on the Internet concerning my remarks on this subject in Austria last month is entirely false” he meant his remarks in toto, not merely the three specific points reported here about a possible canonical deal. Nor is this a stretch. One reason that people were outraged by the rumours was the implication that Bishop Fellay might accept such conditions as part of a canonical structure. In trying to put to bed such speculation about what he might accept, it is perfectly plausible that he meant to deny that he would accept outrageous conditions, and implausible that he meant to deny that there would be any conditions at all.

Further, both possible interpretations are supported by the fact that Bishop Fellay went on to confirm that one of the conditions mentioned in the rumours from Austria is likely to be required (approval of new establishments by Modernist bishops).

As for the “proof” based upon the Fr. Nely hearsay, it requires even less refutation. Fr. Nely does not even hint that a “timetable” had been given. He merely says what Bishop Fellay himself has said, which is that they were given to understand that the April text was acceptable, with the implication that a deal would proceed. So yes, Menzingen would have expected that some kind of agreement would be imminent, given that agreement on a text had essentially been reached, but Fr. Nely does not indicate that a timetable was known.

Further, we don't know what Bishop Fellay expected from the meeting of June 13. He certainly gave no indication that he thought he was arriving to seal a deal. The contrary is more logical, since he had publicly stated that the deal had been delayed (DICI interview). He would certainly have had theories as to why, but in reality neither he nor anybody else outside Rome could know for sure what the reason for the delay was.

My theory, as I've expressed several times, is that the release of the letters between the bishops of the SSPX was the key factor. "rome" reacted to that very strongly, and Menzingen undertood that this reaction bode ill for the deal, and reacted accordingly itself.

In any case, we can be sure that Menzingen did not think that a deal was both certain and imminent in the period leading up to June 13, contrary to what has been said here. What is clear is that at least up until the release of the letters between the bishops, Bishop Fellay had received assurances from "rome" that his text was acceptable, and that Benedict himself was the one making the decision. After the release of the letters, clearly, he was not sure what would happen - the signals from "rome" were decidedly "difficult." On June 13 he discovered, or had confirmed, that Benedict was demanding clear adherence to Vatican II and clear acceptance of the Novus Ordo. Nothing in Fr. Nely's presentation requires or even suggests a different set of facts.

Is it just, and in accordance with the grave obligations of charity, to allege that Bishop Fellay lied? I think not. Indeed, I think that it is gravely sinful to believe such allegations on the basis of the evidence available, and an additional grave sin to publish such allegations.

These sins would not cease to exist, if on Judgement Day it were found to be true that Bishop Fellay lied. In order to avoid these sins, the requirements listed above must be met, now. Clear proof, with no reasonable alternative interpretation, and a grave reason which necessitates publication.

I doubt that Bishop Fellay's accusers can meet the Catholic Church's standards on these points, and they certainly haven't so far, so the allegations should be abandoned.

"For whatever it is worth, I think John has a point. While I did not lie, neither can I accept that the priest did either, and stepping back and looking at this it seems perhaps the better to give His Excellency the benefit of the doubt in the case of the Austrian rumors.

It is very possible that what he meant was that even if this were part of the "deal" package, it was false in so far as he would not accept such an offer.

It is possible that both the Austrian priest and His Excellency are telling the truth. Perhaps beneath the rubble there is some misunderstanding or miscommunication which might explain the whole thing or maybe not but for the present it may be wise to err on the side of giving him the benefit, and not attribute to His Excellency a willful malice in his words.

I will say that I have since sent to His Excellency my apologies for having posted that bit of information. Not because it was untrue, not because the priest was spreading rumors or lying but because it was not a prudent thing to do.

In retrospect the burden was mine to verify and find out just what exactly was the situation before posting the information given me. I should have asked more questions rather than just posting something said which in hindsight was posting only something one sided.

I have stopped posting on IA for a few reasons. The first is, while I have adamantly opposed for more than just a few months, but rather for years any deal with Rome while Rome remains in its errors, and while I have stood opposed to the discussions from the start because I understood that these men in Rome had no desire whatsoever to accept the Truth from the SSPX but instead wanted to use this opportunity to bring the SSPX down, I am not in agreement with those who constantly scream and carry on that His Excellency is an enemy, traitor, Judas, modernist, and one to be hung in the gallows, or as one demented poster said----"executed".

I agree His Excellency has been playing with fire, albeit he may have had good intentions believing he could convert Rome, but Rome's conversion is not something mere men can accomplish. It is reserved for Our Lady alone.

Where has opening the door to Rome led everyone? What have been the fruits of opening that door? What good has come of it either to the "official Church" or to the SSPX? The answer to these questions are quite simple...just look around.

Rome scoffs and mocks the Truth presented to them and stands firmly rooted in their sick adhesion to vatii, the SSPX is in the worst crisis it has ever known since its inception. Brother has turned against brother, bishop against bishop, faithful against faithful and for what?

I said it a few weeks ago and I will say it again, it is my understanding Bishop Fellay has no intentions of signing what he was given on the 13th of June.

For those more militant souls and those who think every dark and ill motive should be attached to Bp. Fellay's words and actions, I say even if it turns out you are correct you would be wise to listen to the sermon recently given by Father Pfieffer on the Feast of the Precious Blood which was very good. The entire sermon was very good but the words of wisdom I refer to were from 35 minutes on. If such was true of so many sinners and saints such can also be true of +Bernard Fellay.

While it may be necessary to speak up at times and not to remain silent, it is also necessary to have the balance of mercy and compassion and even forgiveness amidst obvious injustices.

The Society of Saint Pius the X does not belong to any one of us, that includes the 4 bishops, it belongs to God and it has been put under the protection of the Mother of God.

From where I am standing, the Lord and His Holy Mother have thus far protected it. Even if it has suffered a great deal of damage, the damage done can be repaired. She, the SSPX is not dead but if we allow ourselves to fall into the trap of disunity and chaos we hand everything willingly over to satan who with or without an agreement wins".

John, there are priests who will tell you (and have told plenty of people already) that Bp. Fellay told then the terms of the deal with Rome (permission of the local ordinary needed, new SSPX Bishops to be chosen by Benedict XVI, etc.)

This was then reported on Ignis, Cathinfo, etc.

Bp. Fellay then refers to these reports as "rumours" which are "entirely false".

Now, whatever way one looks at it, it can only be that Bp. Fellay uttered word which he knew were untrue. Let's examine the other alternatives:

1. The priests lied. In a case of their word over his, I'd take their word any day. In any case, why would they invent such a thing?

2. The person who reported this is lying, as are all the people who have heard it themselves and can corroborate it; I'm one of them, so I know for a fact that this is not the case. But maybe some people would like to believe I'm inventing things too? Dawn Marie, for her pains, has already been called a "spreader of lies" on I.A....

3. Bishop Fellay was referring to other "rumours" about what he said in Austria. This is a bit desperate. Possible, but highly unlikely. On Ignis, Cathinfo, AQ or anywhere else, I never came across such an alternative version if "Austrian rumours". Did anyone else? If not, then we must conclude that there was only one set of "rumours" to which he could have been referring.

4. Bishop Fellay didn't realise that the words he was uttering in the DICI interview were untrue. Given that the object of his denial was his own words from a couple of weeks before, I don't see how this is possible. How could Bp. Fellay have been unaware of what his own words were?

5. He was using mental reservation, something like "I didn't say three years. I said 36 months." But he said ENTIRELY false, which leaves no room for such sophistry.

6. Any other possibilities? The only one which is left is that Bp. F simply tried to buy himself a little time by telling a fib.

Doubtless he now hopes that people will forget all about it. Don't let him get away with it.

Sooner or later the truth will come out: it cannot be hidden forever.

When it does, in the highly unlikely event that I am wrong, I am ready to eat humble pie. I wonder if everyone else is...?

I will remind everyone of this when the truth does emerge, and I will be interested to observe some reactions...

Quote from: John Lane

..

The whole point of my post above, which you ignore, is that there us no room for misunderstanding. Bp. Fellay knows what he told those Austrian priests. He knows what he hinself said. So either his denial via DICI is true, or he is lying.

Where is there room for misunderstanding, John?

Quote from: John Lane

ask a few priests who are not definitely against the deal what they think of the personal attacks on Bishop Fellay. These attacks are massively counter-productive.

There is no "personal attack" here.

I am not giving my opinion of Bishop Fellay, his character, etc. I am merely pointing out what was pointed out to me by a very good, holy SSPX priest, namely the inescapable conclusion, whichever way one looks at it, that Bishop Fellay told fibs in that DICI interview.

Same thread, and even more interesting:

Quote from: Pablo the Mexican @ 3 Jul 2012, 08:34 GMT

Big fight at Ordinations; the Bishops fought with Bishop Fellay aggressively and within earshot of the Faithful.

Families that were to have Sons ordained were not told in a timely manner their son or relative would not be ordained were furious.

After having spent five thousand or more dollars in plane tickets each, the lavish parties paid for in advance were for naught.

Such is the contempt this Regime has for non-Whitened Sepulcher Pharisees.

The Franciscans and Dominicans battled with Bishop Fellay openly over such a hostile show of arrogance.

Bishop tessier fought with Bishop Fellay in the sacristy within earshot of the Faithful.

Another Holy Priest has given a sermon:



The Captain is supposed to go down with the ship.

However, the Captain and his Office Help are not supposed to sink the ship.

Bishop Fellay will not turn his ear to hear the Holy Priest.

The Holy Mother and her Son will not tolerate this for much longer.

In Christo sacerdote et Maria Immaculata.

May God our Lord in His infinite and supreme goodness be pleased to give us His abundant grace, that we may know His most holy will, and entirely fulfill it.

Que Dios nos agarre confesados.

Anyone who believes John Lane is an ally of Bishop Fellay in the matter of a sellout needs their head examined.

THAT is hypocritical.

About 15 years ago I said to an SSPX priest:
If I said such and such thing about you would you say that it would be calumny?
Yes, he answered.
And if you said the very same thing about me would that constitute calumny?
No, he retorted

Quote

Horror of horrors: Yes, even Bishop Fellay is entitled to the benefits of the Church's teachings on detraction, calumny, and slander.

John Lane accuses people of such sins recklessly.  The critics of Bishop Fellay are in for the hardest criticism from Mr. Lane.  Why is that?  Those who have been defending Bishop Fellay and the SSPX generally, (though there are many good priests in it) despite the evidence accuмulating over the years are the ones who have allowed things to reach this point.

Quote

Anyone who believes John Lane is an ally of Bishop Fellay in the matter of a sellout needs their head examined.

I wouldn't accuse him of being an ally of Bishop Fellay in the matter of the sellout - anymore than I would accuse him of being an ally of the SSPX in the matter of sedevacantism.

What is preposterous, is the belief that one can be a sede and against an SSPX sellout and not recognize that Bishop Fellay is 100% against your fundamental positions.
John Lane's position is absurd - condemning those he dislikes (for being right) as being slanderers strikes me as a holier than thou pose.