CathInfo.com

The great French Catholic writer, J.K. Huysmans, wrote a novel about de Rais called La Bas. It also chronicles satanism in France during his day.
His later novels, En Route and The Cathedral, are autobiographical accounts of his own conversion to Catholicism.

Did not know that. Thank you. Worth reading? 

One concerned woman told me she was grilled in the confessional by a certain SSPX priest for having discussed the Stafki case with her adult children, who in turn have children in SSPX schools, these families who have all been long time attendees and supporters of the various chapels, contributing countless hours of volunteer work, whose children have attended SSPX schools, who continue to put money in the collections, etc.

The confessor asked, did you have reason to discuss such a serious matter? Does it directly involve you? Even if it is public knowledge in a legal sense, did you have any serious reason to spread it?

Now ask yourself again, how do we make sense of the Stafki "incident". Let's not be naive. The problem was not merely the younger Stafki and his personal culpability for these horrendous sins. We cannot know these circuмstances.

But there is another problem that we can see objectively and discuss openly and fairly. It is the systemic problem within the SSPX, and this systemic quality provides a cover and, for the predatory, an encouragement, for they know that their blind, obsequious confreres will serve excellent police to gaslight the laity as perpetrators of gossip rather than victims of evil. "How dare you discuss our gravely immoral problems! They do not pertain to you. You rather are the one who creates the problems by not shutting your mouth! No, continue to give us money and entrust your children to our care without one question. Otherwise, you detract!"

If these priests had more humility, they might also be able to admit the truth in front of their eyes regarding their own fraternity.

The traditional faith is certainly the best remedy against our sinful nature, but the way is narrow, and the faith is not a magic pill.

Confused about how such a subject makes it into the confessional, unless this woman was led to believe it was a sin to discuss “without reason,” and felt the need to make mention.

I attended a parish meeting the day after the SSPX communique, which began with, “First if all, no tape recorders unless you have received permission…”.

I was having flashbacks to the Fr. Rostand era, who began many of his anti-Resistance damage control conferences with the same warning.

Paraphrasing from memory (since no recording was permitted!), it was then explained that moral theology must regulate our response, and that dictated that the Society only inform those they considered had a need to know.  As regards us, we were told that just because something appears on a police report does not mean it is public (false).

The gist was that someone in another town uninformed about the event has no need to know, suggesting it would be detraction to inform such people.

What was not explained were circuмstances which dispense from detraction, one of which is called “notoriety of law,” which states that if a man is convicted of a crime, he has surrendered his good reputation, and cannot be detracted.

I can envision someone objecting that the priest has not yet been convicted, and therefore notoriety of law does not apply.

Against that fact is the confession of the priest, which represents an even clearer surrender of reputation than conviction (which could always be based upon an unjust ruling), and the fact that conviction is imminent.

So notoriety of law clearly exempts any from the sin of detraction (good taste being something else altogether), unless the communication is motivated by hatred, jealousy, or some other motive sinful in itself.

My wife and I definitely came away with the impression that the purpose of the meeting was damage control.

If it wasn’t, it would have been held sooner (ie., prior to the CM article). 

When it came time for Q&A, one man asked (referring to the atrocious non-communication) what the Society had learned, so that when the next case inevitably occurred, they could handle it better. 

The response was palpable surprise, resistant body language and non-admission of fault: The whole room seemed taken aback that anyone would suggest the SSPX had blundered the communication piece of this whole episode. 

The long and short of it was that the SSPX was right not to tell anyone they considered didn’t have a need to know (but how would they know what families this first visited in the year he had been on sabbatical?), and neither should we (with a suggestion that to do so would be detraction), which is, I suppose, how a woman like this ends up needlessly in the confessional.

PS: If any would like me to post a pic of the moral theology manual discussing notoriety of law within the subject of detraction, just say the word.