Below is an excerpt from Stephen Fox's book, "Operation ѕυιcιdє", p. 132. How can anyone ignore this bit of tangible proof that Rome has not converted yet?

Conclusion Twenty – the promises didn't save the Institute of the Good Shepherd

20. Conclusion: The history of the Institute of the Good Shepherd supports the conclusion that the Society should not enter into a practical agreement with the Conciliar Church. In particular, the fact that the Institute was to have "doctrinal freedom" did not protect it. One of the original Priests of the Institute, Father Paul Aulagnier was expelled from the Society in 2003 for reasons relating to his public support of reconciliation between the Society and Rome. Father Aulagnier's position has been proven wrong by the fact that the Institute is being "forced" to surrender to the principles of the Conciliar Church but his reasons (for favouring reconciliation in 2003) are the SAME reasons that the Superiors of the Society are using to support reconciliation in 2012. However, in 2012 it would appear that those priests (and Bishop) who argue against reconciliation (for reasons including those used in 2003) are expelled from the Society.

Below is an excerpt from Stephen Fox's book, "Operation ѕυιcιdє", p. 132. How can anyone ignore this bit of tangible proof that Rome has not converted yet?

Quote

Conclusion Twenty – the promises didn't save the Institute of the Good Shepherd

20. Conclusion: The history of the Institute of the Good Shepherd supports the conclusion that the Society should not enter into a practical agreement with the Conciliar Church. In particular, the fact that the Institute was to have "doctrinal freedom" did not protect it. One of the original Priests of the Institute, Father Paul Aulagnier was expelled from the Society in 2003 for reasons relating to his public support of reconciliation between the Society and Rome. Father Aulagnier's position has been proven wrong by the fact that the Institute is being "forced" to surrender to the principles of the Conciliar Church but his reasons (for favouring reconciliation in 2003) are the SAME reasons that the Superiors of the Society are using to support reconciliation in 2012. However, in 2012 it would appear that those priests (and Bishop) who argue against reconciliation (for reasons including those used in 2003) are expelled from the Society.

I have not heard of this book.  By your excerpt, it seems to be new.  Who is the publisher?

I would like to focus on what the author of the book, "Is This Operation ѕυιcιdє", stated in this chapter and the various conclusions he draws. Basically, he makes the conclusion that the present Society management is now moving in the same direction that Father Aulagnier wanted in 2003 & 2004. What is even more interesting is that many of the same arguments that Father Aulagnier used (and was then condemned for) are the same ones that present Society management has been using. For those who have not yet read this chapter, the author uses to a large extent a letter written by Father Jean Violette who was District Superior of Canada at the time Father Aulagnier was expelled from the Society.

"Father Vioette summarized Father Aulagnier's fourth argument in favour of reconciliation as "I think that there is a danger in seeing this conflict last for ages".

In the interview Father Aulagnier stated as follows:

Additionally, I think that there is a danger in seeing this conflict last for ages. The Church is a visible and hierarchical society. If one lives too long in an autarchy, one ends up losing the meaning of what a hierarchy is. We are thus in danger, the time passing and the opposition remaining, of forgetting Rome and organizing ourselves more and more outside of Rome. This needs to be acknowledged.

This argument is the same argument that Bishop Fellay (and his assistants) used in their letter to the Bishops Tissier, de Galarreta and Williamson when Bishop Fellay said:
To read your letter, one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church whose seat is at Rome is indeed the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured, to be sure, a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis, but a Church that in spite of all still has as its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One gets the impression thatyou have been so scandalized that you no longer accept that it can still be the true Church. For you, it would seem to be a question whether Benedict XVI is still the legitimate pope.

Quote taken from: "Is This Operation ѕυιcιdє", by Stephen Fox, pp. 136-137