I have pasted some very important snippets below. Warning: Some of what he's going to tell you is quite shocking. The most important points I have put in bold.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Reader,
Human nature is such that, in spite of our best
efforts, very often we arrive at the right answer
for the wrong reasons. That the SSPX as a bul-
wark of Tradition is finished, I have no doubt
whatsoever. Irrefutable, incontestable proof
exist in the form of official declarations of
April 2012, July 2012 and June 2013 respec-
tively. Those are perhaps the most important
pieces of evidence to consider, but are they the
most compelling? Interestingly, I suspect that
for many of us the big, pieces of evidence are
not what will matter most.
For many Catholics, the conviction that the
SSPX as an organisation has gone over to the
side of the modernists is something that will be
arrived at in a hundred small stages. It is a pic-
ture built up using a thousand small, even tiny
pieces of evidence. Any one of those pieces of
evidence on its own could reasonably be
ignored. SSPX priests listening to rap music and evidently enjoying it and saying how good it
was? Hearsay! Where’s your proof? There must be some misunderstanding! Well... Perhaps.
But then one hears of the parishioner in the USA who bumped into one of the SSPX priests
from the local priory wearing shorts and t-shirt while filling his car at the petrol station, as if
it were the most normal thing in the world. Is that imaginable? Again there might be an inno-
cent explanation... What about the priest who preached a priests retreat in Germany and told
the other priests on that retreat (Bishop Fellay included) that in this day and age and in the
current economic climate it is wrong for parents to have more than five children, six at
most...? The problem with all these examples (and there are many more!) is that they all point
the same way. One isolated case might credibly be explained away. But the sum total of all of
them, the big picture which they paint, is undeniable and cannot be explained away.
Dear reader, you might be surprised at just how many people refused to believe the ‘guitars at
Mass in SSPX chapel’ which we mentioned a couple of issues ago. Many readers responded
with sheer incredulity. ‘That can’t be true! There must be some other side to the story! Maybe
it’s an exaggeration!’ Well, I agree, it sounds almost too good to be true. But it is true, and it
is every bit as bad as it sounds, and there is no exaggeration whatsoever. And if you would
like something even more alarming to think about, consider the following: we are able to tell
you about these examples because somehow (often completely by chance) we happened to
get to hear about them. How many other similar such scandals might there be which have
happened and are happening, about which we know nothing?
Things are bad and they are getting worse. Strictly speaking, it shouldn’t take things such as
guitars in Mass to convince us that something is gravely wrong in the SSPX. In theory, by
reading the April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, the July 2012 Chapter Declaration (with its six
conditions), the recent June 2013 Anniversary Declaration et al. and by carefully considering
the implications of what they say, we ought to be able to see for ourselves that the SSPX
which we knew has gone and is not coming back. When a tree is chopped down in summer,
its leaves remain green for a little while. They do not instantly shrivel and die, that takes at
least a day or two to happen. But do we really need to witness the shrivelled leaves in order to
become convinced that the body of the tree is now detached from its roots?
Why do I labour the point –am I spreading scandal in the hope that it will recruit more people
to the cause of the Resistance? By no means. We have a duty to own up to the situation, how-
ever bad it may be. It is a sin to bury one’s head in the proverbial sand and pretend that all is
well. In practice it amounts to self-deception, and if we allow others to remain under a similar
pleasant illusion then that is also wrong. Do not assume that everyone, upon fully realising
the gravity of the situation, will abandon the SSPX to join the resistance. Remembering the
similar situation after Vatican II, we ought to fear that many good Catholics, having placed an
unrealistic faith in the human structure of the SSPX (‘My Society right or wrong!’), and hav-
ing denied the mounting evidence for a while, when that evidence becomes undeniable will
be so scandalised that they will leave the Society, leave the Church, leave the practice of the
Faith and the Faith itself altogether. They will vow never to support any organisation ever
again. We do not wish to see that happen, but in order to avoid it, we must begin to inject a
little realism and disabuse ourselves and others of childish notions. We are therefore grateful
to those of you who have updated us with various little signs of creeping liberalism in the
SSPX from your various corners of the globe. We will try to report on this, even if only
briefly, because, as mentioned before, the overall picture which it paints cannot be denied.
Selfish navel-gazing
Of the various changes which have overtaken and are overtaking the SSPX, some are imme-
diately apparent whereas others are more subtle. One such change of tone, or change of
speech, which is not so obvious is a recent tendency to bemoan “the injustice” by which the
SSPX is known as ‘schismatic’, ‘excommunicated’, etc. This is something which Bishop
Fellay, Fr. Rostand, and various other leading Society liberals have spoken or written about
in recent months. “We are not going to make a compromise! We’re not after ‘a deal’ or ‘an
agreement’ - the correct term is ‘regularisation’, ” ran the argument, “after all, it is an injus-
tice that the Society is in such an irregular position! The Society is canonically irregular
through no fault of its own! ”
This is obviously somewhat alluring. It sounds superficially plausible and at a first glance it
appears to have the interests of Tradition at heart. But look closer and you will see that it is a
dishonest sleight of hand. “Not an agreement, only a regularisation” is simply calling evil by
another name. Secondly, notice the shift of emphasis. If it is merely a question of
“regularising the Society” then on whom is the emphasis placed? To whom does the duty
devolve? Not on conciliar Rome! It is the Society who is out of step with the rest of the con-
ciliar church, and all the talk about “through no fault of our own” does not change that.
Worse, it constitutes a very serious sin of omission. Faced with a gigantic and monstrous
catastrophe, the worst in history, by which Rome has fallen into the hands of the enemy, the
only thing the SSPX can talk about now is its own ‘irregularity’. In the old days, the SSPX
would enter a diocese, set up a Traditional chapel and berate the local bishop for his modern-
ism. None of this apologising for our own existence. And why? Because the Faith comes
first. The idea that the SSPX is in some way irregular is something of an optical illusion. In
reality, it is the conciliar church that is irregular. It is not we who are out of step with the
modern churchmen, it is the modern churchmen who are out of step with their predecessors
over the last 2,000 years. That is what used to be said, at any rate. But no more. Now, we
lament “the injustice” of the Society’s irregular situation.
This is a selfish discourse since it amounts to the Society talking about the Society. It is the
same as the sleight of hand by which Archbishop Lefebvre is said to have consecrated
bishops in 1988 in order to “ensure the future of the SSPX” (not ‘Tradition’). The Society
has no right to be concerned with its own canonical standing, and to do so whilst Rome
remains modernist is to put the good of the Society before the good of the whole Church and
the good of souls. Unless, that is, one does not really believe in the crisis any more.
All very well, and I would not expect this to come as news to many readers. Let us now bear
all that in mind when considering the lot of the “good”, “anti-agreement” priests who appear
to be “resisting from within”. Not long ago I came across a recent (June 2013) French
District newsletter. Most of it is taken up with the ‘letter to friends and benefactors’ from Fr.
de Caqueray, together with photographs of various new properties which the District has
acquired. Fr. de Caqueray was one ‘great white hope’ at the general Chapter last year, and
therefore might reasonably be expected to be free from the preoccupations of his more liberal
confreres. And what important topic does he address to the priests and faithful of the largest
SSPX District in the world? “Oh the injustice! The SSPX is so unfairly treated by Rome! Oh
the injustice against our Society!” (or words to that effect!). From the very beginning of his
letter, and continuing the whole first page - Bishop Fellay’s words in the mouth of Fr. de
Caqueray. Let that give you pause for thought.
Why would any self-respecting Traditionalist be in any way bothered at the idea of being
disliked and badmouthed by a modernist, of being referred to as ‘canonically irregular’ or
‘schismatic’ by the local modernist bishop? Surely we have come to expect nothing less!
Unless, that is, we really crave recognition by the modernists. There is something very dis-
quieting in witnessing someone who tries to hard to impress his enemies. One cannot help but
wonder if they are really both as hostile towards each other or if there is perhaps some
unrequited love involved.
Be on your guard. If ever Fr. Morgan starts to write about “the injustice” of the Society’s
position, take it as a sign. There is already a new SSPX British website which has now
appeared. In itself this is nothing remarkable and innocent enough, though some of us who
used to be proud of how poor quality and rarely-updated the British District website was may
find the new version a little too impressive. But coming hard on the heels of the
“rebranding”, we must wonder if the timing is such a coincidence. If you spot anything
unusual on the new website, do let us know.
Topic: The Recusant - Issue 10 - SeptemberOctober 2013 (Read 2743 times)