Another Frenchman disagrees with Claudel regarding what is, and what is not, implicit in Fr. de Jorna's announcement of Fr. Rousseau's resignation.
From CMS on the French Resistance Forum: http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t943-M-l-abbe-Rousseau-quitte-la-FSSPX.htm
"The situation of Fr. de Jorna appears increasingly untenable.
Undoubtedly because of the hesitations and errors of his previous journey, the Superior of the District of France is currently caught in the grip of his contradictions:
- We know of positions very reserved, even hostile, to the rallying of the FSSPX to the so-called "conciliar" Rome: it is he, we recall, who had denounced at the 2012 Chapter the controversial Declaration of Bishop Fellay of 15 April, reproaching this text for promoting "the hermeneutics of continuity" of Pope Benedict XVI.
- We can guess that he is also strongly opposed to the arrival of Bishop Huonder in the Fraternity school in Wangs: as soon as the event was announced in January 2019, La Porte Latine [SSPX French District website], Salvador Lazo's long Profession of Faith of May 21, 1998 was republished in its entirety - without any announced reason or explanatory commentary! - ...an encrypted message towards Menzingen, as we understood it, and the bishop candidate for "retirement" within the walls of Wangs.
- On the other hand, he routinely maintains the image of a manager who is subject to his hierarchy: he has not questioned the jurisdiction accepted from Pope Francis for the sacraments; he is trying to implement the canonical delegation regime for marriages and is travelling through his district to explain and convince his confreres on this difficult subject; he is seeking contacts with the French bishops in order to restore a climate of dialogue (perhaps also to obtain places of worship); and most recently he published without comment the "Joint Communiqué" of May 20 co-signed by Bishop Huonder and Father Pagliarani.
- Most often respectful of the orientations of his Superiors, he displayed from the beginning a complete "ignorance" towards the "Resistance", its bishops, priests and faithful, and he no longer knows the Dominicans of Avrillé.
But the management of Father Dominique Rousseau's case comes at the right time to reveal and highlight the embarrassment, even the confusion, that now paralyses Father de Jorna in the face of an evolution that, it seems, escapes him.
In his circular to his priests, dated 7 May, but published on 7 June (he refers to the "preparation of Pentecost"), he indicates first of all that he has a duty to announce... etc., which means in good French that he does not wish to assume the responsibility of informing the public of his confrere's departure.
An admissible point of view, but one wonders what is the point of such a circumvented formulation, since the choice had already been made to comply with the instructions received from Switzerland?
Under these formalist clarifications, does not Fr. de Jorna in fact hide serious reticence towards his superiors on the substance of the "Huonder" file, reticence of which he sought, in this way, to alert his colleagues?
He then set out the very strong terms used by Father Rousseau to explain his act of rupture: "question of truth", "wolf in the sheepfold", "intolerable" situation, whereas nothing obliged him to select these accusatory traits under the pen of his confrere, nor especially to relay them in his communication to all the priests of the district, thus giving these accusations an echo in the Fraternity that their author would not have dared to expect!If we reread this circular signed by the Fr. de Jorna, we come to assume that he shares (within himself) the message of protest of Abbot Rousseau....
What then is his "regrets" about this "unexpected departure" worth? Clever meanders of the ecclesiastical spirit?
Could the District Superior not therefore clearly and simply indicate to his hierarchy that he is no longer in sync with the current orientations of the General House, and warn at least the priests under his authority?
His hesitations and moods being more and more disconcerting, it is suggested that he put them in order without delay... by following - why not? - the courageous example of his colleague Rousseau.
"Let your yes be yes, and your no be no"!
In all respects, this would make the debate clearer."