August 2009 Print

Interview conducted by Fr. Thomas Asher at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, Winona, Minnesota (April 5, 2009).

There are some faithful who see any kind of relations with Rome as a compromise in matters of faith. From their point of view, it is dangerous to the conservation of the Catholic Faith. Could you shed some light on this attitude?

I would distinguish. What does it mean to have relations with Rome? If we have relations, it is for a purpose. This purpose somewhere must mean unity. As we claim that we do believe in the one, Catholic, Church, this unity means unity with the Church.

The risk of simplifying, or implying from this that we will align ourselves with the position of the official Church today, is a great temptation. But it is not our purpose. We have always said that there is one true Church, which has the promise of Our Lord that the gates of hell shall not prevail. We are absolutely certain that the Roman Catholic Church, until the end of time, will be the true Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and which we need to belong to in order to be saved. This is the first point.

We also know, however, that it is not new that, in the Church, there is a human side, which is weak, with some deficiencies. You can find this throughout history. I challenge anyone to show me a century where there were no problems in the Catholic Church. There is always something.

The crisis since the Council, which began in the 19th century and peaked at the beginning of the 20th century, necessitating St. Pius X’s intervention, is very painful and brings much suffering. For once, the Church is attacked not only from the outside, like during a persecution, but also from the inside. St. Pius X said the enemy was within, and he tried to erect a barrier to stop these enemies, managing for a while. Pope Pius XII did the same, trying to stop the enemies within. But very clearly, they were there before the Council.

The Council simply consolidated ideas which were spread into the Church. This means the Church is suffering serious diseases. It is not only we who say this. Pope Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have all claimed the Church was sick. Paul VI spoke of self-demolition. He used the term “smoke of Satan within the Temple of God.” These are very strong words. John Paul II spoke of heresies being spread within the Church. Even they acknowledge, from time to time, that there is a very serious crisis in the Church.

Let me compare it to a cancer, even to a generalized cancer, a disease spread throughout the whole body. If someone has such a cancer, you fight the cancer. But this does not mean that you are fighting the person who has the cancer. It is easy to say this is not a good distinction, but it is only a simplification, like when we say “the modern Church,” “the conciliar Church,” or “the official Church.” It’s an easy way to deal with the problem. But it is not easy to locate the cancer when it is generalized. We must maintain that the Church is a visible body, even if we see a great part of it going wrong. We do not have the right to say that it is gone. Then there is no Church and we become sedevacantists. There is a tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water. It is linked to the terrible situation which we live in.

It is very difficult to make these distinctions. We don’t want any relations with cancer; we want to deal with the holy Catholic Church which still exists, the appearance of disease to the contrary. It is a subtle question, and I agree that such relations are not without danger. It is not an easy situation. But if we want or expect the Church to overcome this disease, we are bound to do what we can, in our place, according to our means, to help. If by talking we can remind some people in the Church of the right position of what the Church taught before, we must do it. Of course, we need great prudence. But it is nothing to do with looking for compromise or concessions. We only want the Church to get out of the crisis and be what she has always been: the beautiful Spouse of Christ, to whom Our Lord has entrusted His mission, to bring souls to heaven.

This is why we do what we do. We know our duty is limited; we do not pretend we will save the Church. We do what we can in our place. Even little things in the hands of God can accomplish more than appearances. Consider Our Lord’s multiplication of loaves; He could have done it on His own, but He had a little child bring the loaves to him. We are like this little child. The miracle is in God’s hands, not ours. If He wants us to bring these loaves, let us bring them. In that sense, with prudence, prayer, and counting on God rather than ourselves, there is hope. We can see some achievements and tremendous results with these contacts with Rome without having to give any concessions. We simply hope that the Good Lord will guide and help us in these difficult contacts and relations.

There are certain individuals within the traditional Catholic community who are unhappy with what they perceive as the “silencing” of Bishop Williamson. What is the root cause of their dissatisfaction? What do they not see?

There are several questions here. Perhaps we have to separate them in order to see more clearly. First, we may speak of a fact: since January, we no longer see Bishop Williamson amongst us. By this, I mean acting as a bishop, serving the Society. This, of course, looks like a silencing. But it is the direct consequence of a highly imprudent statement which falls directly under laws in different European countries, which have, as a consequence, very severe punishments, not excluding prison.

In February, a layman who said almost what Bishop Williamson said was sentenced to six years in prison. This lawsuit has already started in Germany, and the possibility of having Bishop Williamson arrested in Germany or, thanks to the new European Union, in any country there, is pretty high. Even in America or Canada, we have examples of people making almost the same statements being extradited and placed into the hands of German justice. Bishop Williamson is obliged by this, after his expulsion from Argentina.

There are a lot of political interventions of human justice concerning these statements about the genocide of the Jews during the Second World War which are very serious. These statements have not only caused a limitation on Bishop Williamson’s movement, but they have caused severe damage to the Society as a whole. This is seen first in different material ways, such as having lost several churches or Mass centers, places we rented, whose owners now refuse to rent to us. Also, several projects which were designed for the growth of the Society have simply been lost because of this story. Thus, even materially, the Society’s growth has been prevented because of this situation.

I may say that the worst part of the situation is the fact that our enemies and adversaries have used his statements to make the whole Society infamous: “The Society is anti-Semitic or influenced by Nazism.” This is, of course, not true, but they have tried to imply consequences on the religious level by these kinds of statements.

I would like here to insist that this is the root of the dissatisfaction. It is a kind of mixing of two very different levels. We, the Society, are a religious organization, part of the Catholic Church. Our aim, energies, and means have to be used for the purpose of the Church, which is the salvation of souls. This is accomplished by preaching the truths of Revelation given by Our Lord and through the grace of the sacraments.

To intervene on the historical level, to judge how many were killed in World War II, and how, has absolutely nothing to do with Revelation. Even if we may not be happy that there is the intervention of civil law from certain States, and privately discuss the matter, or fix by themselves a number, we may say that it prohibits real science from dealing with the problem. In any way, it changes nothing in Divine Revelation or in the requirements we need to fulfill to be saved. Whether 6, 11, or 20 million people were killed in World War II, it changes nothing in what we are bound to believe in Revelation.

I truly fear that to make too strong a link between these two affairs is a dangerous deviation by which we seem to give a new purpose or aim to the Society which has utterly nothing to do with us. If we look at the consequences, many people either say I am abandoning or punishing Bishop Williamson, or that he was very brave in daring to address this question. To this, I would say: If you have a child who is smashing a hornet’s nest, what happens? The hornets sting everyone around. Once everyone has been stung, do you call your child a hero, or do you blame him? Everybody knows that if you hit a hornet’s nest, there are consequences. It is not heroism.

Even Bishop Williamson himself realized that, perhaps too late. This is why he apologized and asked for forgiveness for what he did. Thus, I don’t think we have to insist too much on this. It was very clearly an awkward thing that should never have happened. We are suffering from it. Let us continue our life and try to do our best from here on.

What is also very clear, and what must not be forgotten, is that it appears Bishop Williamson was entrapped. (There was even a document circulating in the Vatican about it.) That is, he was pushed into these statements. These statements, made on November 1, were not used until the middle of January in order to jeopardize the entire lifting of the excommunication. Enormous pressure was placed on the Pope, trying to block his efforts in making some restoration in the Church, going in the right direction.

I think we must keep all these different aspects of the situation in mind. It is very complex. To see it simply as “Bishop Williamson’s situation” would be wrong. It must be placed in a much broader context, which is finally the fight we are in, a fight to protect and defend the identity of the Church and the Catholic Faith.

With Bishop Williamson more or less incapacitated, if perhaps a second SSPX bishop were to become incapacitated or made unavailable, would you consider repeating “Operation Survival” from 1988 and consecrating additional bishops in order to continue the Society’s work?

If the same circumstances and the same necessity arose again, and if there were no other possibilities, we would do it. But I do not think these circumstances are yet present. For the time being, three bishops can manage and solve the needs of the whole world for ordinations, the sacraments, etc. Of course, we have to address the question. But, simply, if we arrived at the same necessity, we would have the same solution.

Are there any churchmen in particular who showed great strength in the face of the media storm, of the media reaction, after the Decree of January 21?

I think everybody put themselves under the umbrella. I did not see many. But we know some. And there were also some courageous words. It is very interesting to note how things happen. First, this storm is launched after the decree and the manifestation of Bishop Williamson’s awkward words. Then, fairly quickly, Bishop Williamson sends a letter to Rome and to the Pope, apologizing. They reply saying it’s fine and that they were pleased. Then, for a few days, in spite of all the attacks on Rome and the Society, Rome was content with the apology. They resisted the storm for a few days.

But the pressure was too much. What Rome did, through a note of the Secretary of State, without any signature, was to redirect the pressure from the Pope and Rome by placing us aside. They essentially said we are not the Church and, thus, we are not the Church’s concern. It was very clear; they simply dropped us. That was the first step: to say we have no canonical existence. Then they went further and imposed a new condition, never done before so clearly or strongly: the plain and full acceptance of Vatican II and all the teaching thereafter. Never, until then, was such a requirement expressed that way.

It was made that way in order to tranquilize the progressivists. It was very clear that several bishops’ conferences had much fear when they realized there was a kind of acceptance of us. They were scared to lose what they had gained since and with the Council. Within the Church, there is where the major opposition lies. It is linked to the Council.

Even more there is a new requirement, linked to this story of the Shoah. It has never been requested, for the exercise of ministry in the Church, the acceptance of an historical fact. It is very strange. I don’t say whether it is good or bad. The requirements in the Church, until now, were always those of the Faith: you had to have the Catholic Faith, period.

What does the teaching of Vatican II even mean? It was a Council that did not want to teach! It was pastoral, not dogmatic. If you look at the notes published during the Council, some bishops asked whether it was infallible and what kind of authority it had. The answer is precise, yet confusing: the importance of the teaching is linked to the subject and the intention of the Fathers. So if the Council claims infallibility, it would be so. But we don’t find that anywhere. The Council did not want to be infallible. It thus has the lowest degree of authority in the Magisterium. Now, this requirement that we must accept it in order to be Catholic is very strange. It looks like an authoritarian and almost tyrannical gesture which is unusual in the Church.

Objectively we have the Faith and that is what matters. This has all been done very clearly in order to relieve the pressure placed on the Pope through the instrumentality of the Society against the Pope. It is very bad, but I frankly do not know how things will continue. I have very contradictory signs even from Rome. The next step will be to see what Rome really wants and expects. Once we have a clear idea, we will know how to behave. It will still be confusing. We did not expect this. I expected rather, after the excommunications being lifted, a more peaceful situation. But this is not the case. It might be a sign, even for us, to say let’s go even more prudently than ever in these relations.

You mentioned the opposition in Rome. Within the Curia, among the contacts you have among the Cardinals and the Curia, what percentage, if you were to guess, are behind the Pope in his efforts to try and reintroduce some of the more traditional elements of the Catholic Faith into the Church’s daily life? Does he have a fairly substantial support within the Curia?

Let me distinguish between two kinds of people. First, there are those who are really in favor of the true restoration of the Church and who have a real understanding of the crisis. They are ready to do something there. There are a few. It is a great improvement, considering ten years ago. Certain things have been done which would not have been accomplished had the Pope not been surrounded by these people.

Then there is another category: those who follow. If the Pope says so, they will follow. You cannot count on them, but as long as the orders given from above are good, they will be good people and do a good job. If things which are no good come out, they will be no good. For now, there is a certain tendency, a line given by the Pope on the level of discipline, which is encouraging. There will be some results.

At the same time, there are others who are fighting this. This is a bit confusing, but, even in the Vatican, the crisis we are in did manifest this fight. It is very disagreeable and unpleasant even to talk about it, but it is there. Everyone spoke about this fight within. Let us pray for the Pope that he may have the strength and knowledge to choose the right persons who will help him get out of this turmoil. It is very difficult to say whether he will be able to manage or not. Will what he does have consequences or a continuity after his death? Let us hope so, but who knows? There is enough to pray about. To give a percentage though, I cannot.

Your description of the Curia today reminds me of the Second Vatican Council: a certain conservative element along with a very vehement liberal element, with many followers in between. You mentioned that there was a handful of conservative and traditional-minded members of the Curia. On the other end, what does it look like? Three handfuls?

I think the example of the Council is good. But I would say that we should hope it is the reverse situation now. At the Council, in the beginning, the liberals were definitely not in the majority, but they managed to take over. Let’s hope this time the little things we see may be the start of something. There is hope for this. My impression is that the progressivist line is dying. They are still in power, so in that sense, they are still dangerous. But there is no future there.

It is dying off, like many dioceses or countries in Europe. Priests responsible for ten parishes is now normal. Empty parishes without priests are everywhere. This is not going to bring strength to the liberals. On the contrary, I do see life and strength among those who want to be much more serious, conservative, or traditional. Of course, what I say and see here is the human side of the Church. We must remember that when we deal with the Church, we don’t deal merely with the human element. The most important element, the essential, is the supernatural element of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ.

The Head of the Church is Our Lord Himself, and the soul is the Holy Ghost. As long as the Church is living, the Head is linked with the Body and the soul is within. God can allow the Church to suffer, but He can also allow it to be healed from these wounds how and when He wants, whatever happens. I therefore have no trouble or problem. Even God may allow very hard and difficult situations where the Church will be resurrected—one more proof of the divinity of the Church.

I do not exclude a certain intervention from God. How will it be? I have no idea. Usually God uses His instruments, the saints, to do this. This will probably be the case. But He is not bound by any of our limitations to save His Church. Even if we are swimming against the current and with much pain, trying to fight in the storm, for God it is not difficult to restore the Church at any time.

In all of these questions, I think we can see agreement on the question of the courage that Pope Benedict has shown. Even among liberals, if they disagree and despise him, they might still admit it was brave, recognizing the backlash to come. And among traditionalists, we can agree that it was courageous. But, granted this courage, some still ask: does the Pope have the Faith?

I would think that if you asked him this, he would be shocked. He would be offended, even. I am certain that he wants to have the Faith. But, on the other hand, if people raise these questions, it is because of different books and works he wrote when he was younger which are truly confusing and troubling. So I may say that, since he does want to have the Faith, it seems to me a very difficult question. The way he expresses it, the philosophical framework, may trouble some people.

I think we have to make distinctions between direct heresies which cause one to lose the Faith if stubbornly held. It is contradiction with dogma. So, are you asking whether the Pope directly contradicts dogmas of the Faith in his teaching? My answer today would be, if you were to ask the Pope directly, for instance, “Do you believe in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ?” you would get the Catholic answer. This, despite the fact that in several of his books there are very confusing elements.

We have seen a certain gravitating towards the Society amongst the ranks of the priests in the Novus Ordo. It is conceivable that, now that the excommunications have been lifted, more priests from the Novus Ordo will look into joining the Society or, at least, working more closely with us as collaborators. Will the Society conditionally reordain such priests as has, more or less, been the practice up to this point?

I would distinguish. It is an important matter. I know the notion is spread, on a large scale, that we consider ordinations in the Novus Ordo invalid. This is wrong. Concerning the sacrament of the priesthood, the correct position is the one we have towards the New Mass: taken in itself, strictly speaking, if all the conditions requested by the nature of the sacrament are respected, we count on validity.

Nevertheless, we do experience—and this is not a theory, but the reality—a certain number of these sacraments which are performed invalidly because one of the elements is lacking: lack of form, lack of matter (which is unlikely for Holy Orders), lack of intention, or a contrary intention. We have seen, for instance, bishops today who have the wrong understanding of the priesthood. How far does this affect things? The validity of the priesthood they would confer is a very difficult question.

We have had several cases where we came to the conclusion that there was serious doubt. It was almost certain that there were elements lacking, thus making validity uncertain. For these sacraments, the Church asks that we be certain—it is called tutiorism—that validity is present. The priesthood is that important. So we check, make an inquiry—not on every priest, but for those who want to work closely with us—and if we come to the conclusion that there are no doubts, we do not reordain them. If there is a doubt, we simply follow moral theology and the teaching of the Church. This is our policy. We do not want to entrust the faithful who come to us to a doubtful priest.

Do priests who come to us need to be retrained before working with us?

Again, it is a case-by-case question. If priests wish to work with us, we first want them to know us, to live with us, and then we can see if there are gaps in their formation. Where there are gaps, we try to fill them.

Among priests who come from the Novus Ordo, there are often deficiencies in their knowledge of Latin. Is it then tolerated that they offer Mass (whether the ’62, ’65, or ’67 Missal) in the vernacular or even the Missal of 1969? Further, are such options available to priests in the Society?

No, by no means are we going down this road. Priests who work with us must say the Mass in Latin. If they don’t know it, they will learn it. Even in Rome, I have heard of a proposition that would impose, even in the New Mass, that the Canon must be prayed in Latin. I have no idea if this will actually happen, but if, in Rome today, they are capable of considering such a proposal, I don’t know why we would go in the other direction.

For the faithful, and even for priests, what advice would you give to those who seek to maintain a balance between fighting for Tradition and adhering to the Pope?

Very simply, pray for the Pope. Recognize that he has the most difficult and tremendous job on earth. The good of the whole Church depends on him and his actions. If he gives the right orders, it will do good for the entire Church. If he neglects to give good orders—ignoring whether he does real harm—the whole Church suffers. Pray for him, and in this you will achieve the proper balance, showing a true care for the Church insofar as you can do something. Prayer is one of the mighty means which are at our disposal for doing good.

What do you see as the biggest challenge to be overcome in the Church in the next decade?

The challenge is to get out of the crisis without provoking a greater one. The train needs to be put back on its tracks. It is not easy. There is much resistance and opposition. The risk of a fragmentation is enormous. Perhaps it will happen; I do not wish this. The challenge is to continue and reinforce the restoration of the Church without suffering too much damage from the present situation. If a high-speed train is going in the wrong direction, you can’t simply redirect the tracks at a right angle, for you will break the train. This is the problem we face now. Let us hope that the present direction continues. There could be drawbacks; the fight is not finished.

Do you see Tradition being more welcomed in America than in Europe? Or does it have an easier time taking root in one place rather than another?

I think you have more liberal bishops and a situation which is not so monolithic in America. So you have bishops here who are more open and thus give Tradition an easier opening than in Europe. In Europe, the bishops’ conferences have a great weight and pressure on individual bishops. There might be some greater success towards traditional or conservative things in America in the coming years, but this can change in Europe too. The Pope is, little by little, nominating bishops who have a more conservative line. If he continues, it will help.

Without trying to villainize the Internet more than is due, in your opinion, do you see the harm that comes to Tradition via the Internet as outweighing the benefits that Tradition can reap from a useful employment of it as a tool?

I do not see so much of a difference between the Internet, television, radio, the press, and the media in general. We can basically say, for all of these things, that the children of the world are wiser than the children of God. Taken by itself, the Internet is a means, and the right use of a means will bring good fruits; the wrong use will bring bad fruits. Now, it’s not simply a means; it’s a very powerful means because you can reach the whole world. It’s very impressive, but this ability is something which has never happened before in history. The radio was seen as a novelty because it was able to reach millions of ears; the television was more since it could capture eyes; the Internet makes it possible for anybody at a very low cost. There is no comparison then between the Internet and these other things.

That means whoever wants to say something—whatever it is—he may do it. This is one of the truly major problems of the Internet and of Tradition. You have people who have an idea of Tradition—maybe correct, maybe incorrect—and who simply talk. Whoever has access to what is said does not necessarily know what is right or true. This is a very serious and grave problem.

When you talk about preaching the truth, the Church has this mission. The Society, as part of the Church, participates in this duty to spread the truths of Revelation. But now everyone can pretend to have authority with great ease. Of course, they have no authority, but everybody imposes themselves as Doctors of the Faith today. There is usually no way to check the quality of the one who speaks. It is a very embarrassing problem. We have experienced, for years, a major problem there.

We have people who, for example, attack us unjustly with calumnies, and there is almost no way for us to stop them. Thus, whoever wants to listen to them may do so. By doing so, they may endanger their trust in the Society. I would go so far as to say that, by putting this relationship with the Society in danger, they easily fall into mortal sin. I do not hesitate to say that those who get information from sites like Traditio, they are in danger of mortal sin. When you see the trash, hatred, and calumnies spread there, you realize it is a dangerous place. And you have no right to expose yourself to dangerous places.

The Internet is quite a challenge. On the one hand, it is now a common means of communication, even the normal method today. So we are obliged to use it. We may not simply ignore it. There is a great need to educate people in how to correctly use this means.

Regarding these websites you mention, there is a sedevacantist website which, I was told, quotes Archbishop Lefebvre speaking to then Cardinal Ratzinger: “Even if you give us everything we want—a bishop, canonical agreement—we may not collaborate with you because you do not accept the doctrine of Christ the King.” Can you clarify this quote?

Archbishop Lefebvre said this in a conference to seminarians. He related a conversation he had with Cardinal Ratzinger in the summer of 1987. They were already discussing the episcopal consecrations. What is very interesting is that, after this meeting where the Archbishop said these things, he sent a letter to the new bishops-to-be, saying Rome was occupied by anti-Christs. This was also the summer of 1987. After all of this, he himself accepted and requested a canonical visitation from Rome. He envisaged discussions which happened in April 1988.

These quotes must be taken in their context. It is a common practice today to make everything an absolute, without circumstances. If you go down this road, you can make anyone say anything. It is a kind of intellectual honesty to try to see what he meant, what he said, what he intended when he said that.

There is a question of principle here: we have a hard time with Rome. It is still the same problem today. I said to Cardinal Castrillon last year and this year exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre said in 1987: If you want us, you must respect out identity. If you want us to change our identity, it won’t work.

Our Lord Jesus Christ is truly Lord. The phrase “Our Lord” means something. He is King because He is God and because all power on heaven and earth was given to Him, even as man. This is a point of faith. There are consequences to ideas like the Kingship of Christ. But if you begin to say, “Well, the State and social life have nothing to do with God. We don’t care about Our Lord,” where is the Kingship of Christ?

If He is King, He cares about His powers and He wants them to be observed. This is also a point of faith: we know that every soul appears in front of the Judge, to whom they must give account. This Judge is Our Lord Jesus Christ, the King, not only of Catholics, but of everyone, including heads of State, be they kings or presidents. They will have to give an account of what they have done with their powers entrusted to them by our heavenly King. Even if we have to wait for years, we won’t change the Faith.