Skip to main content

We have just learned from Bishop Fellay himself that his criticism (very severe no doubt) against Francis' "Amoris Laetitia" was left in a drawer ("filed" as they say), because there were other voices in the Church that rose up against that Bergolian monstrosity. Why should I criticize, if others can do it? Of course, if, as was mentioned at the start of the interview with the unimpressive Vogel, if the mission of our bishops is only to "travel the whole world to administer the sacraments of holy orders and confirmation", and not to teach the truth which is [normally] their first duty, well, then we can quite well understand that bishop Fellay thinks it is none of his business to teach the truth and fight against error, and so he can just file that magnificent document that the bishops of the Society no doubt had prepared. To the filing cabinet!

After this heads up, and in order to try to see things in a positive light as Bishop Fellay asked us in the interview, we decided to put on our pink glasses, and in this happy optimistic vision we contacted one of our English speaking correspondents (secret, of course) in Menzingrad, so that he can inform us whether, as we suspect, there are indeed other rather critical documents by the Society which, due to life's circumstances, needed to be filed simply because everyone knows already what the Society stands for.

In fact, we may have been a bit too hasty in criticizing the silence of Bishop Fellay and his lackeys, because they did speak quite firmly, but alas, their piercing words against Francis remained hidden in Menzingrad's secret filing cabinet.

Our exclusive corespondent informs us, with photographic evidence, about a filing cabinet which he had access to (and he informs us that there are several of these filing cabinets), and in which one can find the following harsh criticisms by Menzingen against Francis and Modernist Rome:

Drawer #1: A letter against "Amoris Laetitia", dated the same day the [Conciliar] bishops published their "Dubia". [It was filed because the Conciliarists beat him to it.]

Drawer #2: A letter that Bishop Fellay wrote protesting against the statue of Luther in the Vatican. The letter was filed because on the same day it was to be posted Bishop Fellay had a rendez-vous with Francis in villa Santa Martha. It wouldn't be polite of him to criticize his host, would it?

Drawer #3: A letter against Francis' welcoming the President of Luxembourg and his "husband". Just the day they were going to publish it, a traditional Catholic website spoke out against it. And why should Bishop Fellay speak if everyone already knows what he thinks anyway?

Drawer #4: A document against Francis' visit to Sweden at the celebration of the 500th anniversary of the Lutheran reform. The document had already been put in an envelope, stamped and ready to be dropped of at the post office and to be sent to the Vatican, but one could already hear other strong voices that were criticizing Francis: it no longer made sense to send that document. Besides, everyone already knows what the Society thinks anyway.

Drawer #5: A protest against Francis' monthly apostate videos. Bishop Fellay recorded his own very harsh video, but everyone already knows what the Society thinks anyway, so he decided to just file it.

Drawer #6: A protest against that spectacle of lights, the "Fiat Lux", that desecrated St. Peter's Basilica. As there were already some criticisms floating around on the Internet, Bishop Fellay decided not to add more "fuel to the fire".

Drawer #8: A very harsh criticism of Francis, concerning his scandalous words about Jesus Christ: "the memory of him who has made himself sin, who has made himself the devil, the serpent, for us"...! There were so many traditional websites and blogs that criticized him for it, so there was no point repeating what had already been said. To the filing cabinet!

Drawer #7 always remains open for the simple reason that it is jammed and can't close anymore. Bishop Fellay took advantage of this opportunity to place in it the text of the erection of the Personal Prelature of St. Pius X. Our correspondent tells us that very early every day, before starting his work, he glances towards this drawer, and thus he reinforces his natural propensity to smile. However, our correspondent cannot assure us that Bishop Fellay has a clear conscience. Nor that he has any conscience at all, that is, that he knows what he's doing. But let's keep our pink glasses on a bit longer, and let us read an excerpt from a recent interview that journalist Vogel conducted in the USA, accompanied by violins.

Mr. Vogel: Your Excellency, speaking of another more universal question, Amoris Laetitia has generated a tremendous amount of confusion and controversy since it was released last year. On the one hand, one could say it's encouraging to see some wake up to the crisis in the Church; on the the other hand, the pastoral results of that document are really devastating. There are even some who claim the Society has been too soft in their critique of Amoris Laetitia. What are your thoughts about this document and the controversy it's engendered?

Bp. Fellay: At the time, I wrote to Pope Francis, and we prepared a text to wake up the cardinals, a letter from our three bishops. But, I will not say “unfortunately”--that would not be the right word—but four cardinals took the initiative just before we were about to send the letter. That's why there was not much noise about it because it was already done. So our letter just remains in a drawer.

In fact, we are certainly doing all that we can with those who raise their voice. I think it is important that people notice that we are no longer the only ones who complain, who denounce, who attack poor situations which are harming souls. It could be one of the reasons why, here and there, I would not talk immediately, letting their voice appear and not mixing mine with theirs. Because usually when we do that, they are disqualified because this tendency of disqualifying us in the modern Church is still very present. And so, letting their voice be heard, for the whole Church, is probably better. And everybody anyway knows what we think and what our positions are. It has not changed and everybody knows that.

So while, and as long as there are voices in the Church who talk in the right direction, to say that one day or another, I would have spoken more softly, does not change anything in the big picture, in the big fight which is still there. That's very, very clear. And it absolutely does not mean that we would, by politics, in order not to jeopardize a possible agreement—which is not the correct word—or canonical recognition, lower our voice is simply not true. If someone would be careful and look at all I write and say, they would say that I just continue. We are still the same.

And I insist in Rome to say we are like this and we are not going to change. We may be a little bit less controversial in attacking the persons. But our reason would not be just a personal gain. What we look for is the most efficient way to have a benefice for the whole Church. Sometimes you gain more by giving a simple argument than by barking it. You have to look at the cases. We are still in a fight, we know that, and it's definitely not over. It's not just for the pleasure of fighting, but we belong to the militant Church.1

Fr. Sardá y Salvany on the other hand wrote in "Liberalism is a Sin":

The Catholic simply tainted with Liberalism is generally a good man and sincerely pious; he exhales nevertheless an odor of Liberalism in everything he says, writes or takes up. Like Madam de Sevigne he can say, "I am not the rose, but standing by it, I have caught some of its perfume." This courageous man reasons, speaks, and acts as a Liberal without knowing it. His strong point is charity; he is charity itself. What horror fills his soul at the exaggerations of the Ultramontane press! To treat as a liar the man who propagates false ideas, is, in the eyes of this singular theologian, to sin against the Holy Spirit.. To him the falsifier is simply misguided; it is not the poor fellow's fault; he has, simple soul, been misled. We ought neither to resist nor combat him; we must strive to attract him by soft words and pretty compliments. How the Devil must chuckle over the mushy charity held out as a bait to abet his own cause! To smother evil under an abundance of good is the tainted Catholic's favorite maxim, read one day by chance in Balmes, and the only thing he has ever retained of the great Spanish philosopher. From the Gospel he is careful to cite only those texts flavored with honey and milk. The terrible invectives of our Lord against Pharisaism astonish and confound him; they seem to be an excess of language on the part of our Divine Savior! He reserves these denunciatory texts to use against those provoking Ultramontanes, who every day compromise, by their exaggerated and harsh language, the cause of a religion all peace and love. Against them his Liberalism, ordinarily so sweet and gentle, grows bitter and violent. Against them his zeal flames up, his polemics grow sharp and his charity aggressive. In a celebrated discourse delivered apropos certain accusations against Louis Veuillot, Pere Felix once cried out, "Gentlemen, let us love and respect even our friends." But no, our Catholic tainted with Liberalism will do nothing of the kind. He saves the treasures of his tolerance and his charity for the sworn enemies of the faith! What more natural? Does not the poor man want to attract them? On the other hand for the most heroic defenders of the faith he has only sarcasm and invective. - Liberalism is a Sin, Chapter 162

  • 1.
  • 2.