http://www.therecusant.com/conference-press-release

A Reply to Mr. Damian Thompson, et al.

Monday, 27th May, 2013
St. Bede the Venerable

The organisers of the Crisis in the SSPX Conference have been made aware of an article by one Mr. Damian Thompson of the Daily Telegraph, entitled “Neo-nαzι h0Ɩ0cαųst Deniers 'plan takeover' of SSPX, claim anti-Fascist campaigners."

We note with astonishment that this article appears to have been written solely for the purpose of uncritically publicising some simply incredible claims, subsequently taken up by others, made against the priests of the SSPX Resistance, the Recusant, the Crisis in the SSPX Conference, and all those involved in it, all of which claims we wish here to deny, to wit:


   that the organisers of the Crisis in the SSPX conference are neo-nαzιs and/or BNP members and/or in any other
   way "disreputable" people;

   that the conference is a “far-right” political event and/or that the event is aimed at removing Bishop Fellay from
   his position as Superior General of the SSPX;

   that the conference somehow involves any form of infiltration and/or takeover of the SSPX in this country;

   that Bishop Williamson will be present at this conference and/or is the driving force behind this conference
   and/or is somehow involved this conference;

   that the conference involves secrecy, plotting, or plots of some sort; and moreover, that the locations, address,
   dates, timings or other details of our conference have ever been a secret.



We are disappointed to note that Mr. Thompson has decided not to allow comments to be written under the article in question, meaning that we are denied any right to reply, by the same means and in the same place, to the outrageous and ridiculous claims which he has published. However, for public record, the organisers of the ‘Crisis in the SSPX’ conference wish to point out to Mr Thompson the following:

   1. Bishop Williamson will not even be in the country when our conference is scheduled to take place. We are unaware of his precise movements but are given to understand that he will be on the other side of the world doing confirmations. He will not be the subject of any of the talks, nor was he consulted in the preparation of the conference, nor did he have any part in the planning or organising of the conference. In short, Bishop Williamson has nothing to do with this event.

    2. Every one of the people involved in setting up this conference is a respectable, practising Catholic with a good name which has now been publicly and shamefully besmirched.

   3. To the best of our knowledge, no “Neo-nαzιs” “BNP members” or “disreputable” persons are in any way involved, much less a “bunch” of them. Nor are any such people welcome, unless they come as practising Catholics, and only as practicing Catholics.

     4. The sole purpose of the weekend’s proceedings will be to discuss the doctrinal position of the SSPX and the problems attendant therewith, and to strengthen the devotion, piety and holiness of the participants.

    5. The conference has been advertised in The Recusant newsletter for the past three months. It has been advertised on our website for the past four or five weeks. The press release published by Mr. Thompson says “We can reveal [that the conference] will be held in Earlsfield Library Hall...” when in reality, this address together with the times, the local busses, and all other useful information has been publicly available on our website for several weeks. There never was any secret, and hence nothing to “reveal”.

     6. In addition to talks on Doctrine, during the weekend we will have Mass, Confessions, Rosary and a Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Can Mr. Thompson please explain to us how he qualifies these things as “extreme right wing” or “neo-nαzι”? Once again, this has been publicly visible on our website for the last several weeks, and a quick internet search would have brought it up.

     7. It has been, and still is, our intention to film and make subsequently available the weekend’s proceedings so that those unable to attend can benefit from them. Does Mr. Damian Thompson consider that this is what “plotting” neo-nαzιs would do?


Where these ridiculous claims have originated is not our concern, although some of us suspect that Mr. Thompson, who is himself no friend of the SSPX, has unwittingly allowed himself to be drawn into what appears to be an intra-mural SSPX dispute involving a dirty tricks campaign against Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, Fr.  Kramer and the organisers of our event. Be that as it may, and although Mr. Damian Thompson may now wish to distance himself and his newspaper from the scandal involved, yet the fact remains that to uncritically make public the claims of another is tantamount to making those claims one's own. Furthermore, to commit the sin of calumny one need not be the originator of a lie: it is also a very serious sin to spread calumny begun by someone else, the more so if one makes public a lie which was hitherto private.

In short, we wish to remind Mr. Damian Thompson of his grave obligation under pain of mortal sin to make public restitution for the serious public injustice which he has committed against the reputations of those involved in the ‘Crisis in the SSPX’ conference, and to restore the good name of the event itself and of the people involved. According to Catholic Moral Theology, until and unless such restitution is made, the penitent cannot validly receive absolution.

We await his public apology and restitution.

I had actually forgotten about  Damian Thompson until that article.

.


It seems to me that this upcoming conference is assured the
success that the organizers and we have prayed for, because
it is going to be the event of the decade -- so far!  

It is with much interest and applause that we see these
developments in progress.  


.   .   .:applause:.    .    .:applause:.    .    .:applause:.    .    .:applause:

Max Krah's vision for the neoSSPX is that it become a pro-semitic religious order.  Therefore, anyone who disagrees with the Zionist is anti-semitic by definition.

The SSPX-Resistance realizes Max Krah as a Zionist infiltrator, so the zio-propagandists must label them as "neo-nαzιs".

This is the same propaganda the zio-rag "SearchLight" and Blaise Compton (a.k.a Ashmolean) have touted. Maybe there is a link between them?

I would be sorry to think Ashmo is involved. Whilst the IA team should have stepped in to vouch for him, I think he exaggerated happenings at conferences in London. I don't share his concerns. I take things on board for certain. I wouldn't dismiss a concern but there was nothing in my mind, that I regard as sinister.

The upcoming conference 'Crisis in the SSPX' is about the 'crisis in the SSPX'.

.


From the linked Recusant website page:

We note with astonishment that this article appears to have been written solely for the purpose of uncritically publicising some simply incredible claims, subsequently taken up by others, made against the priests of the SSPX Resistance, the Recusant, the Crisis in the SSPX Conference, and all those involved in it, all of which claims we wish here to deny, to wit:


   that the organizers of the Crisis in the SSPX conference are neo-nαzιs and/or BNP members and/or in any other way "disreputable" people;

   that the conference is a “far-right” political event and/or that the event is aimed at removing Bishop Fellay from his position as Superior General of the SSPX;

   that the conference somehow involves any form of infiltration and/or takeover of the SSPX in this country;

   that Bishop Williamson will be present at this conference and/or is the driving force behind this conference and/or is somehow involved this conference;

   that the conference involves secrecy, plotting, or plots of some sort; and moreover, that the locations, address, dates, timings or other details of our conference have ever been a secret.

This reads like a litany of self-incrimination, such that:


   the perpetrators of the Crisis in the SSPX are Zionist sympathizers and/or anti-BNP members and/or in some way disreputable people;

   this Ralliement with modernist Rome is a “far-left” political movement and/or that it's aimed at retaining Bishop Fellay in his position as Superior General of the SSPX and removing any Resistance cleric from his position;

   the Crisis involves a form of infiltration and/or takeover of the SSPX in the country of Switzerland and/or anywhere else;

   Bishop Fellay will continue to be present in this Crisis and/or is the driving force behind this Crisis and/or is somehow involved this Crisis;

   the agenda of the Menzingen-denizens involves secrecy, plotting, or plots of some sort; and moreover, that the locations, address, dates, timings, docuмents or other details of the Menzingen agenda have ever been a secret.


In regards to this last item, since the Menzingen-denizens are ALL ABOUT
PLOTTING AND SCHEMING, they naturally cannot imagine that their enemies
would be doing anything else BUT plotting and scheming against them.



*I'm American, so deal with it.

One ought to expect this sort of behavior from those with guilty consciences.  Which saint didn't endure calumny?  Since the conference will be posted for the public, let the rumor-mongers be revealed for what they are.  

Well said Incredulous. May I add that that might pose a problem for them:

Semita: Hijos de Sem (hebreos, arabes y sirios); familia etnográfica y lingüística que comprende los diversos pueblos que hablan o hablaron arameo, siríaco, caldeo, asirio, hebreo, arabe y himiarita (Larousse Dictionary).

Now, “if anti-semitism is bad it’s against Truth. If something is True is not bad”.
 
So either,

1. Antisemitism is good and hence it can not be punishable and the 7,000,000,000 human beings (semitics included) ought to be anti-semitic (because it is good), or,

2. Antisemitism is bad and hence it is not Truth because if it is True it can’t be bad, and hence, if not True, what is it? Now, in Spanish, two words: Verdad/Verdadero (should only apply to God, hence capitals) vs. mentira/mentiroso; and certeza/cierto vs. falso/falsedad. In English?

If correct, and I really don’t know, isn’t that a dilemma (Mt.XXI,23-27) for the “anti-semitic” ones? Also see EC 34.

If only it were that simple, Elsa Zardini.

The problem with so-called anti-Semitism is in what it is.  I don't think you'll
find any dictionary that accurately defines it.  

So I will define it for you, so then it will make sense.

It is this: anti-Semitism is whatever the Zionist Jєωs don't like.  Their own
subjective judgment defines what is and what is not anti-Semitism.  
Therefore, something is anti-Semitic if the Zionist Jєωs don't like it.  
Something is anti-Semitism if it describes something the Zionist Jєωs don't like.
Someone is an αnтι-ѕємιтє if they are someone the Zionist Jєωs don't like, or
if they do enough things that the Zionist Jєωs decide is too much of the kind
of things they don't like.

It's all about THEM.  They are the "masters" and everyone else is the goyim
(that means 'the cattle'.)

Go to Wal*Mart and see the rows and rows of "GOYA" food products on the
shelf.  Coincidence?  Why choose that name?  IN YOUR FACE, GOYA.  Stand
there for a while and try to find a Jєωιѕн person buying Goya food products.
Watch them go down the aisle and deliberately avoid even LOOKING at them.
A stock clerk who is Jєωιѕн probably won't want to TOUCH the Goya products.
Check it out.

They are the Masters and thou art cannon fodder.  Thine is not to question
why ~ thine is but to do or die!

Get it?  They tell you.  You listen and obey.  End of story.

E.g., Fellayism.

Just what you would expect from a mainstream journalist. What else would you expect them to do except maybe just ignore it.

But don't they say there is no such thing as bad publicity.