The Muzzled SSPX Has No Opinion
by
Sean Johnson
6/21/17
It was only a couple weeks ago that we commented on Fr. Bouchacourt’s propaganda piece in the May/June Fideliter titled “As We Are” (Here), in which he stated:
“This fighting spirit against errors, even if it is only a consequence of an unconditional attachment to the Catholic truth, even if it intervenes only after the primary and essential concern to transmit the grace of Christ to the Is an integral part of the perennial identity of the Society of Saint Pius X. It will never abandon this struggle against error, an indispensable accompaniment to the love of truth.”
Of course, this is nonsense: The SSPX abandoned this struggle years ago, when it implemented the branding campaign, by which it agreed to soften its criticisms, and avoid negative critiques of the Council and conciliar Popes.
But supposing you were oblivious to all the evidence which could be (and has been) amassed to support that contention, only two weeks after Fr. Bouchacourt’s delusional (or dishonest?) article, a perfect example of this abandonment of the struggle appears on SSPX.org in an article regarding Pope Francis’ appointment of an Anglican pro-abortion “theologian” to the Pontifical Academy for Life (Here).
If you read that article, you will search in vain for the SSPX’s condemnation of Pope Francis’ appointment. They have nothing to say about it at all. Rather the branded approach is simply to report the news objectively, and without opinion (much the same way a secular newspaper reports the weather, stock market activity, and sports scores): They offer no commentary of their own…at all.
Any negativity or disapproval conveyed by the article is supplied not by SSPX.org, but subjectively and individually by the reader of the article, not by the wrods which comprise it.
Where is Fr. Bouchacourt’s “fighting spirit against errors?”
The timid SSPX is forced by their lust for a juridical approval to content themselves with other people’s comments on the matter (without ever affirming or commenting on them).
Actions speak louder than words, and very obviously the illusion/delusion Fr. Bouchacourt would wish to impart (more for the public consumption of those who have predetermined to support the SSPX’s slide into conciliarism at any cost, to make their passage from Tradition into conciliarism an easier transition) is roundly contradicted by the SSPX’s own refusal to offer a condemnatory opinion in a scandalous matter.
At best, we can only cite quotes of other non-SSPX sources, in order that when Archbishop Pozzo rings Menzingen, the General Counsel will be able to say that “it is not our opinion; we only quoted someone else. And after all, we never affirmed our agreement with those opinions!”
But you have to understand the game that Menzingen is playing:
It raises the topic of the Pope’s appointment of a pro-abortion to the Pontifical Academy for Life, as if to imply that it is condemning the Pope on an issue in which, in former days, it most certainly would have. The illusion, therefore, is that the SSPX has not stopped condemning errors, and the constituents in the pews are pacified.
On the other hand, if you actually read the article, the SSPX doesn’t offer a single word of condemnation (i.e., it only quotes the reactions of a couple non-SSPXers), in order to stay within the confines of the branding campaign (i.e., No condemnations of Rome or the Roman modernists).
But what does the SSPX say on the matter?
Evidently, they either have no opinion themselves, or they dare not give voice to it.
And yet Fr. Bouchacourt can say, with very little reaction from those still glued to SSPX pews, that the SSPX will never abandon the condemnation of errors.
