Somehow, a private correspondence between myself and Bishop Faure, on the subject of the accusation of Mr. Henri de la Chanonie regarding the bishop’s alleged openness to enrolling sedevacantist seminarians, has made its way onto a Pfeifferian forum.
Since that private conversation has now aired with the permission of neither Bishop Faure (so far as I know; it is early morning in France, and I await confirmation of this), nor myself, I will now discharge my mind on the matter, for which I had been awaiting permission.
Meanwhile, perhaps Machabees can explain how my email happened to come into his possession?]
[Update: Apparently the bishop sent the email to an enemy, not knowing he was an enemy. This enemy in turn sent it to Machabees.]
Interviews recently aired of two seminarians of Bishop Donald Sanborn (Sedevacantist bishop in Florida, USA), which are being held out by the Pfeifferites as evidence that Bishop Faure allows sedevacantists into the St. Louis de Montfort Seminary in Avrille, France.
The first interview is of Mr. Jacob Sons, who spent 90 days in Avrille. In the interview, Mr. Sons recounts his drift into sedeprivationism.
“There’s the proof that Bishop Faure admits sedevacantists!”
The interview itself shows that Jacob left because he had become sedevacantist, not that he was admitted to the seminary as a sedevacantist (and there is no allegation in his interview that he held those beliefs prior to admission, or more to the point, that if he did, Bishop Faure ever knew about it).
Quite honestly, I respect Mr. Sons for the consistency of his principles: If you become sedevacantist, leave and go to a sedevacantist seminary.
It is unfortunate, but consistent.
On the other hand, we have an interview with young Mr. Henri de la Chanonie, who at the 6:00 mark, flatly declares that Bishop Faure knew he was a sedevacantist, and invited him to enroll in the seminary anyway.
That is a more damaging statement, and certainly problematic.
Precisely for that reason, I wrote to Bishop Faure, and attached the interview, to ask if that accusation was accurate [that private email is now sloshing around the internet with Bishop Faure’s response to that question].
The response I received was twofold:
- Bishop Faure acknowledges he was aware of the young man’s sedevacantism, but denies he ever invited him to enter the seminary;
- After providing some details of the conversation His Excellency had with this boy (which it is not necessary to recount here) [but which have now somehow ended up in the hands of Machabees], Bishop Faure adds:
“It is obvious that I could not have told him: entering our seminary and remaining sedevacantist is no problem … In any case it is quite certain that he never set foot in our seminary and that he never will.”
We therefore are faced with a clash of facts, and the question then becomes, “Which account is more reliable:”
The young boy who, being interviewed by the sedevacantist seminary, knew what answers were desired of him,
The bishop who has been persecuted by, and fought, the sedevacantists since they were destroying the SSPX Mexican District and Argentina seminary decades ago (and the persecution which amped up from the Mexican and Argentinian sedecantists since the bishop’s episcopal consecration)?
Do you really think such a man is going to be tolerant of sedevacantism?
In passing, I would like to note a lesson here which, no matter how many times I mention it, never seems to sink in:
When you are faced with an account (e.g., Bishop Williamson’s Eleison Comments) which disturbs or runs contrary to expectations, go to the source for an explanation. You will prevent rash judgments and falsehoods (as in the present case), and often times be given answers which, because they have the sound of truth, restore peace to the soul.
One must be allowed to question why some would refuse to do so, when in this case, Bishop Faure was readily available for response or explanation.
A sectarian is not interested in the truth, but only in advancing arguments which help his Sect, and for such types, approaching the accused risks diminishing the falsehood which bolsters their party.
That, my friends, shows bad faith.
But we have known this for some time.