Hopefully by now, I have written enough on the subject of my concerns regarding the recent orientation of Menzingen to draft a thread on this subject, without running the risk of being accused of being soft or compromised.
But it seems to me that some lack a properly Catholic spirit in the manner in which they post on the crisis within the SSPX.
It seems to me a proper spirit would be at perfect liberty to:
1) Compare/contrast current v previous statements and positions;
2) To voice concerns over phrases, interviews, communiques, etc which appear to present a danger to the Faith;
3) Even to denounce those who have done so, if this can be done without ad hominem.
To do these things represents no injustice to the SSPX, or members thereof.
On the contrary, it is a charitable rebuke, and in justice is done publicly because the perceived damage was done publicly.
That said, we must ask ourselves whether we post on sites like this because we want to convert the other side, or simply vent and rant.
Consider this post (taken today from another forum):
"Well , father Rostand. Nowadays, there is paypal. No problem. I put my money where my mouth is, all of it going to the Holy Resistance. They never threaten with holding the sacraments if you don't give money, like yourself."
In this case, this person has committed multiple sins in a single post:
1) He has accused Fr. Rostand of simony, which is calumny;
2) He has sinned against justice in making this allegation without supporting evidence;
At this point you need to ask yourself the question: What will be the effect upon the subject?
Certainly it will not be a good disposition toward the resistance!
That this person and I happen to share the same conclusion (i.e., The new orientation in Menzingen should be resisted, for reasons stated elsewhere), certainly does not mean we share the same spirit.
One of the reasons I started posting in my own name was to help ensure I did not fly off the handle, and descend into mud-slinging contests, such as that evinced in the quote posted.
We are not free to "T-off" without regard to moral theology simply because someone is on the other side.
And when this person should someday receive a letter in the mail informing him that he is no longer welcome at his SSPX chapel (if he goes to one), how will he defend himself as being the victim of injustice?
As I understand it, having recently spoke with an SSPX priest on the matter, we would be allowed to voice our concerns, lay out contradictions, repudiate error, etc, so long as all of this can be done without sin (i.e., insults, ad hominems; etc), and in such cases it would not be just for the SSPX to ban us from our chapels, since it is only by notorious public sin that moral theology would support a ban.
The whole point is that as Catholics, we should have a certain savoir faire in airing our concerns.
Are my arguments any less forceful because I choose not to incorporate allegations of simony, etc?
My way has the chance of receiving a fair hearing, keeping a properly Catholic spirit, and continued attendance at my chapel.
The other way, such as quoted above, probably loses all three.
And if we should violate this higher standard from time to time by getting caught up in the heat of battle, let us at least acknowledge it and try to correct the damage.