I am sorry I cannot improve the translation any more. I am not familiar with the style and some of the French expressions Fr. Pinaud uses. (Samuel)
Your reaction to the declaration of seven of your ten deans on Sunday, May 7, has prompted me to write to you publicly because it reminded me of the facts and attitudes I had hoped to have definitively left behind me after the masquerade of my ecclesiastical trial.
“You condemn and reprove completely and firmly the subversive way in which this statement was circulated.”
You then elaborate: – Secret preparation – selected confreres – surprise and destabilization of superiors – taking the faithful hostage – judgment of superiors.
Your prose reminds me of that of the Secretary General in his circular of 7 March 2013:
“.. a handful of priests determined to break up the Society ..” or, more recently, the words of Fr. Berteaux in his sermon of 24 April 2016, again assuming the role of executioner of Fr. Roy, who had expressed his concerns. “Yes, I’m worried. Because many priests, just like me, are worried. If until now we have kept our silence, it has always been in this hope that these leaders who currently direct us can find the way, and can rediscover the light.”
Aren’t you discrediting yourself by so brutally accusing these seven deans of subversion ? Seven Deans! Would their appointments be so bad that seven revolutionaries have been invested with this function?
Do you know them?
Fr. Aldalur never ceased to show the greatest respect for Bishop Fellay, who presided over the festivities of the 25 years of his school in 2014. He prepared for him a triumphant reception in Lourdes for the pilgrimage of 2015, and also on the occasion of the pilgrimage to Le Puy in 2016. At the moment, he is spending all his time on the installation of the SSPX in its new Basque acquisition.
Fr. Beauvais silently submitted to his last changes without ignoring their motivation.
Fr. Camper is spending body and soul for his new assignment of the SSPX in Lyon.
Are not the Fr. France and Fr. Legrand models of discretion and priestly devotion?
Can one be more respectful and obedient than Fr. Gaudray? He is one of those who, in the past, went to Menzingen to express their concerns. At the end of my Austrian detention, he advised me to do everything to avoid leaving the SSPX. “At least let us save the appearance of unity,” he told me.
As for the Fr. de la Roque, he was one of the four theologians chosen by Bishop Fellay [to participate in the doctrinal discussion of 2009-2011], a sign of his competence and of the confidence which the Superior General held in him. The two Dominicans of Brignoles still remember that Fr. de la Roque refused them Communion on the grounds that they had perjured themselves by leaving their community. Recently, questioned by Martial Bild, Fr. de la Roque recalled the rules of obedience to the Superior General, whom he defended vigorously.
Truly, all are examples of respectful submission. There is no shadow of a rebel among these confreres.
But if there is a real question that arises, it is this: How could such confreres have succeeded in publicly opposing what the superiors seek to impose on them unjustly?
The problem is not the secrecy. Secrecy, moreover, which is very relative, since Fr. de la Roque had asked you for straightforward and clear explanations for several weeks, and had warned you that, without an answer, he would provide the explanations himself. Reading Chardonnet n ° 326 of March 2017 could not leave you of illusion on this subject:
“As far as any satire, it would be indispensable to question Pope Francis on the content of his faith, even before considering the prudential appropriateness of a canonical recognition. For it can not depend on the divine will for one to place his eternal salvation in a position of dependency on someone who does not profess the Catholic faith. To establish a legal unity without real unity would be a contradiction.”
These words have a price to pay!
Moreover, we learn that Fr. de la Roque had warned you of this declaration before it was made public, and had even indicated to you the names of those who subscribed to it. This allowed you time to contact each of the signatories without being able to convince a single one to renounce it. It must be noted that the argument of authority is exhausted. All that remains is the solution advocated by Fr. Berteaux:
“When there is mutiny, these are the martial laws – it is the exceptional court – it is necessary to cut in the life- we shoot on the field!”
For two and a half years, with a suppleness that had to be challenging, you endeavored to make believe that the unity of spirits reigned in the district of France. This illusion was shattered Sunday May 7, 2017.
What is the problem? It is very simple: it is the accusatory inversion of subversion. You are guilty of that of which you accuse your confreres.
Who is subversive? Not these deans who are of a measured and respectful style, but above all, Bishop Fellay and his accomplices who defend him against the evidence. You are inexcusable because you attended the 2012 Chapter. You heard it, maybe even listened to, the statement of the Fr. de Jorna.
I am wondering if servility would not be one of the major selection criteria to become District Superior?
As for the issue of subversion, it was dealt with in detail during my trial and has never been disproved to date. (Pp. 247-255).
You write: “God can not bless such an initiative whose deadly fruits are now manifesting themselves.” Are you so sure of yourself, to the point of knowing the divine judgment, in this affair? As for your “From now on”, who are you making fun of? It will be seven years since Msgr. De Galarreta warned you in Albano, you were there, that it was necessary “to close as soon as possible the ‘pandora’s box’ [negotiating for a practical accord with unconverted Rome] for the good of the Society, in order to avoid the discredit and the demolition of authority, disputes and divisions, perhaps without return.”
You reproach these deans for not having had the prudence to submit their text to their superiors. We are no longer in 2012 or 2013. This invitation to trust was so inaudible that it was disregarded. The Cor Unum of March 2016 acknowledged a “mistrust of our members, not only of the authorities of the official Church (!), but also to their own superiors. It seems to us that often these attitudes, somewhat desperate, from personal injury, frustration, disappointments with regard to superiors…”
Should we see in these deans, seven desperate, seven wounded, seven frustrated, seven disappointed?
Would not the pilot survey, announced in the same Cor unum, have reached its goal? For you are not unaware that the seven signatories were not the only ones informed. Tomorrow, it is not impossible that you are confronted with a declaration of priors expressing their support to the seven deans, and the day after tomorrow, confronted with a declaration of vicars in solidarity with their Priors and their deans; the day after, we should not even exclude a declaration of support from the Brothers … Are you even certain that your own house in Suresnes does not harbor some subversive spirit?
As long as you persist in holding as nothing the content of this declaration and to despise it as “an insignificant thing, good only to be thrown away,” you will never find unity – except by expelling all the priests who maintain “that it cannot the divine will to put one’s eternal salvation under one who does not profess the Catholic faith.”
Two of the superiors of communities you overwhelm without the slightest authority over them, have undoubtedly not forgotten what they heard at Menzingen, during a respectful visit of confidence: “We know there will be a breakaway, but we will go ahead anyway.”
In your letter of May 10, you dare write “that the end does not justify the means. An illegitimate means can not be used to attain a good end.”
Ignorant of what your superiors are capable of? Among other means, would identity theft be a legitimate means?
A few weeks after being placed under house arrest in Jaidhof, Fr. de Cacqueray invited me to be very careful: “They are capable of anything to destroy your reputation.” I leave it to you to identify who “they” are. But unfortunately I personally found that you yourself were not entirely innocent in this area.
There is still much to be said, but to conclude, allow me to relate some of the words you spoke at Bailly on 11 October 2014 on the occasion of the Days of Tradition. This was one of your first interventions as a superior of the district of France; It is still available on La Porte Latine (54 ’51’ ‘).
It is not a monument of ecclesiastical literature, you will agree, but nevertheless these words sums up your attitude so well as to justify saving them from oblivion:
“I beg you to believe that the Society does not give up fighting … Do not listen to birds of misfortune. … The day when the Society will say to you: ‘The Council after all is not that bad.’ The day the Society will tell you: ‘the new Mass if it is well celebrated, go ahead.’ On the day when she says: ‘Religious liberty has been misunderstood, we must modulate all that has been said’
So [on that day :] get out of that camp and abandon the Soceity as soon as possible. But we are absolutely not there yet thanks to God, but I am sometimes worried about seeing some people who live in a virtual world:
– ‘The Society will betray us.’ – Give me an example. Are your priests silent? – ‘No, but they could be’!
Pretty nice! You know, one day I had a parishioner who belonged, quote unquote, to the resistance, over there (in South America) I betrothed him. One day he arrives with his fiancée, a tall fellow. – ‘Here, I want to talk to you both’ They come before me and then I say to the fiance and his fiancée was there: – ‘Say, I have a question for you, but please, Miss. It seems that you deceive your fiancee ‘ He becomes pale. – ‘If, I assure you, I have heard about it, you cheat your fiance’ The fiancé became livid. “But finally Father, why do you tell me that?” ‘I’ll tell you why?’ You see, for months, you say that my Society to which I belong is in an adulterous position, that she is about to give up the fight. Well you see it’s disagreeable that I tell you that you might be unfaithful to your fiancee. Well it is very disagreeable to me that you say without proof that my Society is on the point of abandoning the fight ‘ The poor old man, he found a little color because he realized that what I had said was just one example.
I implore you: the district must regain its unity … “
Without proof? Are you really honest or just amnesic?
Did not Bishop Fellay say that the Council was 95% acceptable?
Did not Bishop Fellay acknowledge the legitimacy of the promulgation of the new Mass? To recognize the new Mass as legitimate means that the new Mass is not bad in itself.
Did not Bishop Fellay sign in his answer of April 14, 2012 to the three bishops: “In the Society, we are making the errors of the Council into ‘superheries,’ it becomes like absolute evil, worse than anything, In the same way that the liberals have dogmatized this pastoral council.”
Let us quote Fr. Pflüger, in his memorable recollection of the Brothers: “In the Creed, one does not profess that one renounces Vatican II and religious liberty! ”
Is it sufficient or do we have to multiply examples and quotations? Yesterday was your fiancé wrong to worry as your deans and others do today?
You answer the accusations of adultery against the Society of Saint Pius X by a false example of infidelity which should not convince any of your deans.
Should we not rather inquire, Father, whether you would not be a real deceived husband?
France, 13 May 2017
Fr Nicolas Pinaud
Condemned, supension a divinis
by a tribunal of the SSPX
for obstructing the publication of spelling mistakes