Monday, September 26, 2011

SSPX Update

Straight from the horse's mouth:

Italy: Meeting of Superiors of the Society of St. Pius X

Filed under From RomeNews
As announced in the interview given to DICI on the September 14, 2011, following the meeting with Cardinal William Levada, Bishop Bernard Fellay will consult the Superiors of the SSPX about the doctrinal preamble, given to him by the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Society’s Superiors will meet together behind closed doors at the Italian District Headquarters, in Albano, the October 7 and 8, 2011. (DICI 09-23-11)
So it looks quite likely that we will have some sort of significant development to report either on or just after October 8. Hopefully the response will be positive, and allow the SSPX to be completely rehabilitated. By my understanding it seems also possible that clarification is sought on points in the Doctrinal Preamble, though considering the brevity of the Preamble I don't know how likely this is.
Keep praying for a speedy, mutually beneficial reconciliation.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Immorality and Free Speech on Campus

It's the start of a new academic year now, two weeks in for me. This week was the week for clubs to advertise and recruit, so there are lots of posters up around campus advertising clubs and causes, etc.. One of the groups that is advertising fairly aggressively right now is "Queers on Campus"; they've put signs up on all the bulletin boards with pretty typical slogans like "Homophobia: now that's a choice", "Closets are for clothes", etc., etc.. Just sound bytes really.

I don't like these ads, and I'm going to explain why.

I do support free speech, free expression, etc., 100% and unqualified. I would disagree with anyone telling them that they can't put up these signs, even though I think this group is completely wrong, and I find the ads and the message behind them rather distasteful. That's not the issue here. The issue for me is that these signs represent an implied threat.

What makes these an implied threat? My own freedom of speech and freedom of religion are being slowly eroded by new policies that make their definition of homophobia essentially illegal. According to my university's "Campaign for Positive Space", students are called to "treat homophobia and transgendered discrimination as seriously as you would racial discrimination or other forms of sexual harassment and act on them." How does that same page define homophobia? "Hatred and mistrust of homosexuals." As we've seen in recent years, the definitions of all of these words are becoming more and more broad. For instance, this pastoral letter written by my bishop got him sent to the "Human Rights Commission" against charges of discrimination. As far as I know the two complaints against him were eventually dropped after the ensuing controversy, however the challenge has been issued. For simply preaching as the Church has always preached, Bishop Fred Henry faced legal attack which in theory could have resulted in thousands of dollars in fines and legal costs.

So, the precedence has been set for labeling all remarks, spoken or written, that are critical of homosexuality, as "homophobia" and "hate speech", which opens the targeted individual to hefty fines and legal costs. These fines of course would be considered unjust under Catholic morality. (An unjust law is no law at all.) If that hypothetical person refuses to pay, what happens? I don't think it's happened yet, but it's not such a stretch to think that it involves imprisonment. So there's the threat. It's a threat of extortion, and at the end of the day, a threat of violence. Who backs up these government policies? The enforcement arm of the government. Guns and metal cages.

St. Polycarp: killed for refusing to offer incense to the Roman gods.
Believe what you want, but if you tell anyone else, you're a criminal.
Sacrifice to our gods if you want to live.

Why don't I like those signs? Every single time I see them, I'm reminded that the day may be coming where I'm no longer permitted legally to say that I believe what they do is morally wrong. Maybe that day is already here. I don't want to find out.

Ads on my Blog

I enabled AdSense to post advertisements at the end of my posts and on the sidebar of my blog. These will start appearing probably within a few days.
I don't control which ads will appear, but I believe I am able to block certain sites from having ads here. If you see anything inappropriate for this blog, please let me know either by email or by a comment, and I will block that site from advertising here.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

The Rise and Fall of the Celebrity-Priest

  • Dale Fushek
  • Alberto Cutié
  • Fr. Thomas Euteneuer
  • Fr. John Corapi
  • Fr. Frank Pavone(?)
There are more I'm sure, and there are going to be more over the next few years I think. Just very recently now, they all seem to be falling one after the other. What has happened?

What is the role of the priest? My informal offering is that the priest serves God and Mankind by laying down his life for the Church, and taking on an alter Christus identity in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the worship of God and the salvation of souls.
The key in terms of the priest's acceptance of his vocation would be precisely that he does lay down his life in service of God and the Holy Mother Church. It is distinguished as a vocation because he does take vows that bind him to his chosen state. (This is, by the way, what distinguishes simple 'default' single life from the consecrated virginal state. Simply being single is not a vocation. Taking a vow of virginity is.)
During the priest's ordination, he prostrates himself while the Litany of the Saints is chanted. The prostration, among other things, symbolizes that he is giving up whatever life he may have had, in favour of service to the Church. He is offering himself wholly to whatever the Holy Church could ask of him. He is no longer his own person. Archbishop Sheen said as much; "The priest is not his own."

I believe that the issue with celebrity priests is one of independence.

Of course in the Church there is a place for 'missions' that a priest could take on which are secondary to his offering of the Holy Mass. We have great need of priests who teach, serve the poor, pray outside abortuaries, etc.. The issue is not with taking on these extra responsibilities per se. The problem arises when the priest allows this mission to overshadow his vow to place himself at the service of the Church. Pro-life work is a great and honourable thing to do, but if the Church calls a priest to serve in a different capacity, he must serve in that capacity.

Many priests take on extra responsibilities which are great things in and of themselves. They often do many good things while carrying out these responsibilities. Then, we've seen a few times, they get 'too good' at it. They are praised for their work, and rightly so, but they allow temptation to overpower them, and they accept the praise for themselves instead of deflecting it all to the Church. Now this praiseworthy undertaking is their mission. It is not their service of the Church.

The issues may manifest in minor instances, such as the priest who has a quiet attitude that his bishop or ordinary should not 'impede' the exercising of his personal mission. Or it might be major, such as the priest who rejects the Church so that he is no longer under supervision of those who might call him in other directions.

I don't believe that Dale Fushek and Alberto Cutié were ordained with the intention to reject the Church, be excommunicated, and seriously violate moral law. I don't think Fr. Corapi ever intended to leave his ordained ministry in preference to his speaking, and I don't think Fr. Euteneuer ever intended to violate his obligation to chastity and moral integrity. The moment a priest opens himself to regarding his personal ministry as his own work, rather than the Church's work of which he is merely a steward, I believe that he puts himself at grave risk of being corrupted, of turning his own good intentions into a tool that Satan may use to attack their vocation.

There have been priests whom we might call celebrities who did not fall in this way. I'm thinking of Archbishop Sheen and Padre Pio. Both found themselves very famous, and with a certain 'cult following'. I can only speculate on their thought process, but I am more than willing to hazard a guess that both of these very great men rejected the fame they were offered, and instead redirected all attention they received to the Church. They resisted the temptation to conduct their ministry as a personal crusade, and instead always kept in mind that whatever they did was only a tool of the Church to reach more souls.

Christ is the perfect model for priests, and all of Mankind. A priest can always call upon the example of Christ to lead him. I have in mind right now Jesus' temptation in the desert. The Devil offered him everything that the world could provide, and our Lord rejected it all. He rejected the glamour of evil, the wickedness and snares of the Devil. Our priests can all do the same, especially through the faithful and pious offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Satan was defeated in Christ's Incarnation, death, and resurrection. He is defeated over and over again at every offering of the Mass. I think that the more faithfully and the more reverently the priest offers Mass, the more completely he is able to reject the many temptations of the world, and the more perfectly he is able to crush the serpent by the power of Jesus, Mary, the angels, and the Church Triumphant.

I'm not attacking priests like Corapi or Pavone. We don't even know the real nature of Fr. Pavone's situation. However I am afraid for them. A priest is given great dignity, and great fruits are demanded from him. To whom much is given, much more will be expected. I worry that their stumbles and minor faults are far more costly to them than they might be for someone who is neither a priest nor famous. Their example leads many, so they must be completely above criticism so as to never lead their own faithful to sin. Such is a great scandal, and it is a tragedy every time it happens. We need to pray for our priesthood, that they be preserved from attacks by the Devil, and that they resist every temptation to let their own desires and weaknesses infiltrate their vocation to the Church.

Lord Jesus, we your people pray to You for our priests. You have given them to us for OUR needs. We pray for them in THEIR needs. 
 We know that You have made them priests in the likeness of your own priesthood. You have consecrated them, set them aside, annointed them, filled them with the Holy Spirit, appointed them to teach, to preach, to minister, to console, to forgive, and to feed us with Your Body and Blood. 
 Yet we know, too, that they are one with us and share our human weaknesses. We know too that they are tempted to sin and discouragement as are we, needing to be ministered to, as do we, to be consoled and forgiven, as do we. Indeed, we thank You for choosing them from among us, so that they understand us as we understand them, suffer with us and rejoice with us, worry with us and trust with us, share our beings, our lives, our faith. 
 We ask that You give them this day the gift You gave Your chosen ones on the way to Emmaus: Your presence in their hearts, Your holiness in their souls, Your joy in their spirits. And let them see You face to face in the breaking of the Eucharistic bread. 
 We pray to You, O Lord, through Mary the mother of all priests, for Your priests and for ours. 

 March, 1995 
 Electronic Copyright © 1999 EWTN All Rights Reserved

Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Ethical Philosophy

It's time for me to re-read Veritatis Splendor in preparation for my philosophy in literature course this semester. First book we've been assigned is James Rachels' Elements of Moral Philosophy, and Rachels, as you may or may not know, was entirely in favour of euthanasia and abortion, as well as so-called "affirmative action", which I have a huge moral problem with, though it pales in comparison to euthanasia and abortion.

My starting point in ensuring for myself a firm basis in the Catholic moral tradition will be the three "sources of morality" that are dealt with in Veritatis Splendor (§74). Those three sources of morality, sometimes called the Fonts of Morality, are the object chosen, the intended end, and the circumstances (including consequences) surrounding the action. In particular while I read, I will be noting every way in which I can oppose utilitarianism (including the so-called modern utilitarianism) and pragmatism.

In supplement to Veritatis Splendor, I will also re-read and analyze an article from the Summer 2010 issue of Communio called Experience of Nature, Moral Experience: Interpreting Veritatis Splendor's "Perspective of the Acting Person" by David Crawford. This article provides a solid argument against what I hope I recall correctly to be situational ethics and proportionalism.

Wish me luck. Secular philosophy is so frustrating sometimes.


Veritatis Splendor

Experience of Nature, Moral Experience: Interpreting Veritatis Splendor's "Perspective of the Acting Person"

buddhism-as-philosophy-introduction-mark-siderits-paperback-cover-art.jpgI also intend over the next few weeks to write a bit about Buddhist philosophy, ideally in a way that allows me to determine what aspects within Buddhism could be called pre-figures of Christianity. I have a couple ideas, specifically with regards to the Four Noble Truths (There is suffering, suffering has an origin, there is an end to suffering, and there is a[n eightfold] path to ending suffering.
Very briefly, my intention when I analyze this further is to examine the Buddhist conception of human suffering as existential pain, and determine how far this can be related to the Christian understanding of the dissatisfaction of Man while not united with God. It should be interesting if I can put together a solid post on that.

Ok, now I'm done for real. God bless.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

"Battle Plan" For New Bishops

I took Fr. Z.'s cue today and read an exceptional article by Phil Lawler at outlining his own advice for new bishops. Read the full article at this link. Seriously, do it. It's the best article you'll read all week. Except for the ones on my blog, right? No, better than that too. ^_^

 Here are my favourite pieces of advice from the article:


 -About 20-30% of the priests are leftist ideologues, outright heretics, historically encouraged by previous bishops who either feared them or sympathized with them. The most corrupt and liberal priests are the most likely to try to cozy up to the new bishop with flattery. The conservatives are either too busy in their parishes or find such flattery repugnant.

 -There's a minority of activist orthodox priests: maybe less than 10%. Some orthodox priests are truly wild men. Also, the priest who insists that all of the world's problems will go away if he avoids speaking up and does more holy hours may be truly “orthodox” in a sane environment, but isn't much use on the field of battle if he gives in to evil programs in the name of “obedience.” Some ostensibly orthodox priests use the outward appearances of orthodoxy to mask sinful behavior.

-The liturgy is in shambles in most parishes, even some of the “orthodox” ones. (Many orthodox priests just don't know what constitutes good liturgy!)

First Steps

-Ask for resignations from everyone on the chancery staff. (Ideally the apostolic administrator should have done this before the new bishop arrived.) All staff members should understand clearly that you determine whether or not they stay, and the presumption is negative.

 -There are probably a large number of people you really have to dismiss quickly: rebellious pastors, effeminate chancery officials, etc. (The less urgent cases can wait; you can use the budget crisis to justify the blow.) Fire them all at once. Plan it carefully to minimize the uproar. Make the announcements late on a Friday afternoon. On Saturday, release that rip-snorting pastoral letter on family life, which you have been drafting since your appointment was announced. Schedule some event Sunday with a big, loyal Catholic group. Tell reporters you'll answer questions there. Settling in: new ideas

 -Your next pastoral [letter] should insist upon the proper celebration of the Mass. It should contain disciplinary teeth. Narcissistic priests hate constraint. It's easier to catch them in an act of liturgical abuse than an act of sexual abuse.

Building community in the new-look chancery

-You will find that you have two or three prosperous parishes that are traditional centers of opposition, led by dissident priests. If you had all your priests read that fire-breather pastoral on protecting family life, you'll probably have enough general lay support—even given the hostility of the media—to face down the bad pastors after they refuse to play ball. Replace them with Nigerians to mute the screams from liberals [Lol! -I.G.S.] and to force the worst parishioners to go to the Episcopalians or the Paulists.

Consultation and dialog

-Cultivate a reputation for enjoying candor. When people give you a “nice” answer to your questions, press them: “You don't really think that, do you?”

-Make a habit of calling priests at random, at odd times. Ask them what they're doing. Networking and team ministry

-When laws that impinge upon the Christian conscience are discussed (e.g., laws that would guarantee access to abortion or sterilization, laws that require hiring of homosexuals) remind everyone who represents the diocese that it is not sufficient to obtain a “religious exclusion” so that Church-run institutions are exempt. If what's being proposed is morally objectionable, everyone should be able to invoke a conscience clause—at the bare minimum [Can we get a conscience clause for taxation? -I.G.S.]. Church lawyers and lobbyists should defend the rights of all Catholics, not only those employed by Church institutions.

Ongoing Processes

-If a complaint comes in on liturgical abuse, phone the pastor and get his side of the story. Make it a policy to write him a letter summarizing the conversation (including his assurances of conformity) and if that complaint was warranted, insist that he post your letter in the vestibule of the church for a month. If the complainant reports no change, send someone to check it out on site.

-Skip a meeting of the USCCB and delay paying the annual assessment, just for the hell of it. [Maybe he'd start a trend. ^_^ -I.G.S.]

 So yeah, I really l enjoyed this article. It would be a seriously exciting diocese that had a bishop who followed this advice. Maybe we'll see that in the newer generation of bishops. Archbishop Chaput, for instance, has already made some serious waves in Philadelphia. See also:

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

His Excellency, Bishop Fellay, Speaks

Bishop Fellay provided a brief interview in the aftermath of the final meeting today. I reproduce it here in its entirety.

Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay after his meeting with Cardinal William Levada

Filed under From RomeFrom TraditionNews
mgrfellay_1At the conclusion of the meeting that Bishop Bernard Fellay and his two General Assistants had at the Vatican with Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on September 14, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X answered our questions [for the readers of DICI].
How did this meeting go?
The meeting was conducted with great courtesy and with equally great candor, because for the sake of honesty the Society of St. Pius X refuses to evade the problems that remain.  Moreover
the theological discussions that took place during these past two years were held in this same spirit.
When I stated on August 15 of this year that we were in agreement on the fact that we did not agree about the Second Vatican Council, I also made sure to explain that when it comes to dogmas, like the doctrine of the Trinity, we are quite obviously in agreement when we find them mentioned in Vatican II.  One sentence must not be taken out of its context.  It is to the great credit of our theological talks that they seriously examined and elucidated all these doctrinal problems.
The joint press release by the Vatican and the Society announced that a doctrinal document was delivered to you and that a canonical solution was proposed to you.  Can you give us any particulars?
This document is entitled “Doctrinal Preamble”;  it was handed over to us for in-depth study.  Hence it is confidential, and you will understand why I say no more about it to you.  However the term “preamble” does indicate that acceptance of it is a preliminary condition for any canonical recognition of the Society of St. Pius X on the part of the Holy See.
On the subject of this doctrinal preamble, to the extent that this does not concern its confidentiality, can you confirm that it contains, as announced in the press release, a distinction between what is de fide [essential to the faith]—to which the Society fully adheres—and what is dependent on a pastoral council, as Vatican II itself claimed to be, and thus could be subjected to criticism without calling the faith into question?
This new distinction was not only announced in the press release;  I have personally heard it from various sources.  As early as 2005, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos told me, after I spent five hours explaining to him all the objections to Vatican II that the Society of St. Pius X had formulated:  “I cannot say that I agree with everything that you have said, but what you have said does not mean that you are outside the Church.  Write to the pope therefore and ask him to lift the excommunication.”
Today, for the sake of objectivity, I must acknowledge that in the doctrinal preamble there is no clear-cut distinction between the inviolable dogmatic sphere and the pastoral sphere that is subject to discussion.  The only thing that I can say, because it is part of the press release, is that this preamble contains “certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation of Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church’s Magisterium and to ‘sentire cum Ecclesia’ [thinking with the Church]. At the same time, it leaves open to legitimate discussion the examination and theological explanation of individual expressions and formulations contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and of the later Magisterium.”  There you have it;  no more and no less.
As for the canonical status that is said to have been proposed to the Society of St. Pius X, on the condition that it adheres to the doctrinal preamble:  there has been talk about a [personal] prelature rather than an ordinariate;  it this correct?
As you correctly note, this canonical status is conditional;  only later on will we be able to see the exact modality of it;  it still remains a subject for discussion.
When do you think you will give your answer to the proposal in the doctrinal preamble?
As soon as I have taken the time necessary to study this document, and to consult with those who are chiefly responsible for the Society of St. Pius X, because in such an important matter I have promised my confreres not to make a decision without consulting them first.
But I can assure you that our decision will be made for the good of the Church and of souls.  Our Rosary crusade, which continues for several more months, must be intensified so as to enable us to obtain, through the intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, the graces of light and strength that we need more than ever.  (DICI no. 240 dated September 14, 2011)

I am hopeful and excited. I hope that the Doctrinal Preamble can be accepted by the Society. I'm watching this play out with great anticipation and prayer.
God help us all.

SSPX Meeting With Cardinal Levada

Wednesday, September 14, 2011


VATICAN CITY, 14 SEP 2011 (VIS) - At midday today the Holy See Press Office released the following communique concerning the postion of the Society of St. Pius X:

"On 14 September at the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the congregation and president of the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei'; Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer S.J., secretary of the congregation, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, secretary of the pontifical commission, met with Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, who was accompanied by Fr. Niklaus Pfluger and Fr. Alain-Marc Nely, respectively first and second assistant general to the society.

"Following the appeal of 15 December 2008, addressed by the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, the Holy Father decided to remove the excommunication against the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. At the same time, he approved the opening of discussions with the society in order to clarify doctrinal problems and to heal the existing rift.

"In order to put the Holy Father's instructions into effect, a joint study commission was set up, composed of experts from the Society of St. Pius X and from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who met in Rome on eight occasions between October 2009 and April 2011. Their discussions, which aimed to identify and study the essential doctrinal difficulties in the controversial issues, had the result of clarifying the positions of the two sides and their respective motivations.

"While bearing in mind the concerns and demands presented by the Society of St. Pius X about protecting the integrity of the Catholic faith against Vatican Council II's 'hermeneutic of rupture' with Tradition (a theme addressed by Pope Benedict XVI in his address to the Roman Curia on 22 December 2005), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith maintains that the fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See is the acceptance of the text of the Doctrinal Preamble, which was handed over during a meeting on 14 September 2011. The Preamble defines certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church Magisterium and 'sentire cum Ecclesia'. At the same time, it leaves open to legitimate discussion the examination and theological explanation of individual expressions and formulations contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and later Magisterium.

"At the same meeting, certain suggestions were made for a canonical solution to the position of the Society of St. Pius X, with a view to achieving the desired reconciliation".
OP/ VIS 20110914 (450)
I see nothing momentous yet, but it appears that the document was given to Bishop Fellay, in which case previous rumours indicate that he has two weeks to respond or ask for clarification.
ETA: I'm not seeing any of the recent articles mention this two weeks thing that I heard before. Maybe that was a mistaken rumour. In any case, according to CNS, they are expected to respond rather soon.
ETA2: This link goes into just a tiny bit more depth, saying:
"The “doctrinal Preamble” offered today to the Lefebvrians, as foreseen yesterday by the Vatican Insider, is a concise two to three page long text, which reaffirms the fundamental principles of the Catholic faith, needed to maintain the unity of the Church. The Vatican’s spokesman, Federico Lombardi, however, said that its content is supposed to be kept secret." 
 Slightly further on:
"The “doctrinal Preamble” therefore, does not seem to contain an explicit request for “full recognition of the Council and the teaching of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI himself.” This was affirmed by the Secretary of State, in a communiqué published issued in December 2009." 
I find this last paragraph especially to be very encouraging. Maybe this is going to be quick and painless...

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

SSPX Reunion Part Two?

Cardinal Levada
At the start of the summer the rumour was that the SSPX would be offered an ordinariate structure sometime in July. See my last post for details. Obviously this was incorrect, but again I'm seeing similar rumours- this time based on tomorrow's meeting between Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Levada.

Now, last summer Bishop Fellay spoke during his homily at the SSPX ordination, and asked his priests and those faithful who attend their Masses not to listen to rumours, and that he would tell them as soon as anything happens. Therefore, for a while I too ignored that rumour.

However, to hear the same rumour again is interesting at the very least, and we do know that this meeting tomorrow is an important event in SSPX/Rome relations. Catholic Culture is also reporting today on rumours that a resolution is close; they even imply that it is imminent. As they write:
"The Vatican is close to an agreement with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) that would regularize the status of the breakaway traditionalist group, according to a report in Le Figaro.
Jean-Marie Guenois, the veteran religion correspondent for the French daily, predicts that a September 14 meeting between the SSPX leader, Bishop Bernard Fellay, and key Vatican officials will lead quickly to a resolution of the split that began in 1998[...]"
For the time being, all we know is that tomorrow, Bishop Fellay, and I believe Frs. Pfluger and Nely will meet Cardinal Levada, head of Ecclesia Dei and the CDF. Cardinal Levada has, as far as I know, the authority to resolve the issues once and for all tomorrow (I imagine with Pope Benedict's approval), and Bishop Fellay too has the ability to resolve everything.

I am going to pray for all involved parties, that this entire episode can be put behind us tomorrow, so that the SSPX can be the robust force for legitimate Catholic renewal that I believe they are meant to be. In my opinion, as the situations stands now the SSPX is capable of limited good (I believe they had an important influence in the greater availability of the Traditional Mass). I do also believe though that they are seriously handicapped because of their situation of tension and conflict with Rome. I believe their intentions are good, and I believe they (or rather most of them) desire a resolution (maybe more than some Vatican officials and the more modernist Catholic faithful).

God help all involved. :)

Bishop Fellay, Fr. Pfluger, Fr. Nely, Cardinal Bertone (respectively):