The Pope revokes the sentence of excommunication upon the Lefebvrists

[fpb]

I am horrified. Of all the unwelcome, untimely, ill-conceived, unnecessary, insulting and disastrous measures Pope Benedict could have taken, this is the worst. On the very week that the most anti-Catholic and pro-abortion President has taken office in Washington DC, the Pope seems to indicate that open flirtations with Le Pen and Pinochet,

Comments

[kgbman]

Calm down. If lifting a decree of excommunication meant the excommunicate was being welcomed back with open arms, then the Orthodox would have all been in communion with Rome for the past forty years. Lifting the decree is only a first step towards eventual reconciliation. Obviously there is still much that needs to be done.

I would add that it is pure wickedness to want to kick anyone out of the Church or to rejoice in their leaving. I guess you could call me "conservative," but I don't want Catholics who believe women should be ordained or that contraception is perfectly moral to become Episcopalians any more than I want racists, fascists, or other unpleasant types to go into schism. The Church is Christ's, and Christ wants everyone. Can you be a good Catholic and hate the Jews or any of your neighbors for that matter? Maybe not at the end, but we're not at the end; the tares are mixed in with the wheat. If Christ is willing to put up with someone like me until then, I'm willing to put up with them.

[fpb]

Oh yeah, right, we are all sinners so we should all put up with each other's sin. Sorry, I don't buy that. And my basic point is that these people have done nothing whatever to show that they repent even the sin of schism, let alone their various pathologies and hatreds. They are coming in unconverted and unexcused. Whoopee.

[kgbman]

Oh yeah, right, we are all sinners so we should all put up with each other's sin.

No. I'm saying we should be patient with sinners, just as the Lord is infinitely patient with you. And with me. And with everyone. Read Matthew 18:21-35 carefully and prayerfully, O unmerciful servant.

They are coming in unconverted and unexcused. Whoopee.

The Orthodox haven't submitted to the authority of the Pope. Should the Holy Father excommunicate them again?

[fpb]

The excommunication of the Easterners took place nearly a thousand years ago and was mutual; the people currently alive can hardly be called responsible for it. Most of the current SSPX leadership was put in place by Lefebvre and it was their consecration for which he and they were excommunicated. Apart from the children, every member of the SSPX has been guilty of schism as an adult and by his or her own free choice. That being the case, I see very little that is comparable.

[fpb]

The opinion of a skilled and conservative canon lawyer: http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/01/lifting-excommunications-of-june-1988.html

He should calm down too?

[lyssiae]

I have to say, Dr. Peters at least cites sources, which you do not. He's also concise and uses paragraphs.

I'm not sure there's anything to suggest that the SSPX have held the views you accuse them of. You certainly don't provide anything to support your opinion. And you certainly seem to think you know better than the Holy Father. Where were you in 1988?

[fpb]

In 1988, I was taking my second year of university here in London. That is beside the point, The nature of Lefebvre and his movement is a known matter. If you want to know what he was about, google "Lille sermon" or "Lille speech". To me, your questions are like someone asking what evidence I have that the BNP is Fascist.

[fpb]

Which is significant in itself. Whatever you think of it, it was a historical sermon. Why should it not be accessible?

I'll try and come up with a few links, but I can't promise anything. I am extremely busy about now with a couple of major projects well behind time, and right now it is night in London and I feel sleepy.

[fpb]

Incidentally, you seem shocked that I should rebuke the Pope on a matter of policy. The number of saints who did so when they thought right is surely in triple figures. I myself wrote a letter of protest to John Paul II of blessed memory when the Church decided to support Pinochet at the time of his arrest: http://fpb.livejournal.com/221123.html. And in the end, Galatians 2.12. If Peter himself could be rebuked, and rightly so, for failings due to considerations of human policy, how much more his successors! I do not presume to leave the Church; I have no intention to lecture the Pope on the faith; but where a decision is made that strikes me as wrong and damaging, it is my duty, more than my right, to raise my voice so far as it can be heard.

[dustthouart]

He's also concise and uses paragraphs.

Oh, low blow!

You can go onto the SSPX website, sspx.org, if you want their views from the horse's mouth. You will find it laid out there quite clearly, neatly and with plenty of paragraph breaks. Check out the FAQ question "Are the Jews guilty as a race of deicide" for starters. (SSPX sez: yes.)

Just because some liberal dissidents think they can utterly dismiss the Holy Father and personally attack him does NOT mean that all criticism of a pope's actions are sinful. I still love and honor Pope Benedict XVI, but it is my consideration that he is being extremely imprudent.

Then again, God can turn all things to good. Who will be unhappy if the lifting of the excommunications results in more souls going to heaven? I just think the result is likely to be the opposite.

I doubt whether she will read anything

[fpb]

You see, the point is that some people simply do not want to be told that the SSPX stinks of Petainism and Jew-bashing. This would mean that there can be such a thing as bad Traditionalists, and that is of course unacceptable to certain sensibilities. It is the party spirit - which I cursed again and again; the thing that makes us stupid, blind and arrogant, that destroys our sense of proportion and criticism, and that associates us with evil. It is the spirit that has led Republicans to defend Cheney when he said that there was nothing bad about torture, and that led Catholics to vote for Obama even though everyone had been warned in advance about his views. Our people cannot possibly be bad, even when they are; their people cannot possibly be good, even when they are. Curses, and curses again, on the party spirit; I will never tire of damning it.

Re: I doubt whether she will read anything

[tibba]

But I've nowhere said that the SSPX are the best thing evar, or that all Traditionalists are the bees' knees. In fact, the only direct (well, it was online) contact I've had with an SSPX priest was quite unpleasant: he was very forthright about how Catholics should infiltrated mosques and hide miraculous medals in them in an effort to convert them. Moreover, his tone wasn't so charming. But he didn't exhibit Jew-bashing tendencies and I've nothing, other than your rant, to suggest that he might.

I think my shock at your piece here is mainly because even on the "traditional" blogs (etc) I read, there has been a real mix of opinion to yesterday's news. From the wildly enthusiastic to the cautious. Even the most "liberal" of Catholics I know have been more "Uhhh, ok, I don't like the SSPX and they need to do lots of work now" than "Nothing good can come of this."

I suppose my question here is: why are you so absolutely certain that no good can come of this decision?

Re: I doubt whether she will read anything

[fpb]

First, it has given the best ammunition to the anti-Catholic forces since the KGB started spreading the "Hitler's Pope" lies about Pius XII; and this while anti-Church forces are triumphant in the USA, most of Latin America, and much of Europe. Every newspaper in the world has spun the news as follows: "Pope forgives Holocaust denier", and nearly every newspaper has put it on the front page. Second, it has done and will do nothing to convince the Lefebvrites that there was anything wrong with rejecting a Universal Council of the Church, charging four Popes with heresy, and, in the case of their founder, denying the validity of his own signature at the bottom of the Vatican decrees. Third, if we re-admit the Lefebvrites as a body, they will come in with their own arrogance and self-importance intact; and this may help damn quite a few souls, if that is of any importance. Fourth, it will put off the moderate and liberal wings of the Church without doing anything for the Trads; in fact, it will damage the Trads, since people like me

Re: I doubt whether she will read anything

[luckymarty]

FWIW I, as a Catholic, am one of those who pretty much agrees with you. I hope your complaints are overstated but fear they probably are not.

Yes, I have two LJ accounts and I use them interchangeably.

[tibba]

It was one of the points which struck me when I viewed the page *shrug*

I think fpb's statement: "There is absolutely no upside to this decision; every aspect of it is completely mistaken" sounds very much to me that he claims he knows better than the Pope on this matter. Hence why I asked him where he was in 1988. I was at school, myself. I think the Holy Father has a better background in the events. There is valid criticism, but common sense would demand that for criticism to be valid, it should be based upon relevant experience. I don't think fpb has that experience, unless he perhaps has had a personally very hurtful run-in with some SSPX folk - in which case this rant might be understandable.

God can use everything for good, even perhaps that which is intrinsically bad. But fpb seems to think this act is intrinsically bad ("There is absolutely no upside...."), and whilst Popes aren't necessarily the prefectestestest of people around, I believe Benedict XVI's actions here do indeed have an upside - both intended, and hopefully,