The Recusant

Original: http://www.lasapiniere.info/archives/2148

These are the facts: Mrs V. is a pious and zealous Christian of 87, who has devoted several decades to the SSPX priory at Perpignan. In March 2015, in her own home, and with some friends, Mrs. V. received Bishop Williamson in order to hear Mass and listen to a conference on the anti-liberal encyclicals.

Since that day, Fr. de la Motte, prior of the SSPX in Perpignan, has refused to give Holy Communion to this lady, even when she came up to the communion rail.

Threatened with exclusion from the chapel to which she was so dedicated, Mrs. V. asked the prior several times why he considered her conduct gravely sinful: no justification could be given. How, indeed, could receiving a catholic bishop, consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, having no more and no less jurisdiction than his other brethren in the episcopacy, constitute a serious moral fault justifying refusal of communion?

In the opinion of Fr. Renaud Joubert de la Motte, as he told one of the Perpignan faithful who was outraged by the scandal, “Mrs. V’s situation was not complicated.”

He had called Mrs V to ask her to cease receiving Bishop Williamson at her home (by what right?), and “warned her of sanctions if she persisted in this public act” (by what right?). For Mrs V to be readmitted to communion, Fr. de la Motte required “a letter of apology for having received Bishop Williamson at her home, on a Sunday, during the priory Mass.” And a letter committing her not to rouse ill feeling and proselytise (which, as it happens, she was not doing) in favour of the much-talked-of Resistance, in the premises of the priory…”

Fr. de la Motte had ordered his curates to refuse Mrs V communion, in violation of the Canon Law of the Church.

Canon 353 states clearly: “Any baptised person who is not forbidden by law, may and must be admitted to communion.”

And Canon 853, §1: “Communion is to be denied to those who are publicly unworthy, such as those excommunicated, or under interdict or manifestly infamous persons, until they give signs of repentance and amendment, and as long as they have not made reparation for their public scandal.”

§2: “In the case of private sinners, if they request communion privately, and the minister knows that they have not repented, he is to refuse them; not, however, if they request it publicly and if scandal cannot be avoided by rejected them.”

After Mrs V was denied communion for several weeks, a declaration of solidarity was sent to Fr. de la Motte, signed by 25 out of the 40 faithful in attendance. During this time, Mrs V asked a young curate how she could fulfil her Easter duties. He answered this lady, who had opposed the conciliar revolution from the very beginning, in an off-hand manner, that she had only to go to the Fraternity of St. Peter.

The French District Superior too, was informed by one of the Perpignan faithful. Fr. Bouchacourt replied, “candidly” rebuking Bishop Williamson for, “criticising Bishop Fellay” his “Superior” and his “religious family.” Fr. Bouchacourt forgot to specify whether the criticism was right or wrong, but he did not hesitate to say:

“I cannot agree because I have esprit de corps. By his attitude, Bishop Williamson is dividing Tradition, since he goes all over France. He is subversive, and enabling him to act in this way is not morally good. Fr. de la Motte had warned Mrs V. The prior’s order did not go against Faith or morals. It was necessary to obey. The prior’s duty is to watch over the unity of the flock. Bishop Williamson acts like a wolf. He must be kept away and prevented from causing harm. A priory is not organised like a democracy.”

Everyone will appreciate the sound theology of this high representative of the SSPX!

Obedience! Obedience! Obedience! Obedience!

Coming from a son of Archbishop Lefebvre, who taught us to disobey men in order to obey God, this is hardly adequate. Fr. Bouchacourt preaches unity in iniquity, argues that to receive Bishop Williamson in one’s home goes against Faith and Morals, and conceives the organisation of a priory as a tyranny.

Sound theology, by contrast, affirms the following simple truths, unfortunately and scandalously scorned by Frs. Bouchacourt, de la Motte, and his curates.

A) The priest must always deny communion to those who are publicly and notoriously unworthy (the excommunicated, those under interdict, public sinners, heretics or schismatics, even if in good faith).

B) The priest may deny communion to all private sinners, provided that this is done secretly and without scandal (every act which can produce a moral fault in others is scandalous).

The case of Mrs V corresponds neither to A) nor B). Therefore, the sacrament was unjustly denied, and Fr. Vittrant explains in his “Moral Theology” (1943): “The gravity of this injustice corresponds objectively to the gravity of real harm thus caused.”

Meanwhile, Fr. de la Motte decided to leave the SSPX, to join the conciliar church. At a Mass held to mark his departure (for such acts are now celebrated in the SSPX!) the little ceremony indicated rather a mere change of prior than treason of a militant (but we are told that nothing has changed in the Society!). A curate even took the floor to call on people to avoid all rash judgement, and announced that “Fr. de la Motte [was] leaving the SSPX to be of service to the diocese of Versailles.” Oh, how elegantly these things are expressed! A deserter becomes a good shepherd!

Fr. Rousseau, after having been punished for his strong reaction, against the pseudo-canonisations of Francis, was disastrously appointed as the new prior at Perpignan. But neither age nor the buffets of fortune have made him more clear-sighted. He went to see Mrs V and told her that, if she wished to receive communion again at the priory, she would have to promise never in future to receive Bishop Williamson, nor any other figure in the Resistance. In short, a vile and odious sacramental blackmail. In the end Mrs V at the age of 87, tired of enduring such an unjust persecution, yielded. Nobody can blame her: neither God nor man. Far more culpable are Frs. Bouchacourt, de la Motte, Rousseau and his curates who have all sinned mortally.

The SSPX has truly lost its head. Not only does it act improperly as if it had ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful, forgetting that it has only supplied jurisdiction, but it unscrupulously contradicts the most holy and grave laws of Moral Theology and Canon Law. The SSPX covers its doctrinal slide with an iniquitous pastoral hardening.

However, the Moral Theology of St. Alphonsus Ligouri states that no “censure may be imposed on persons over whom one has no jurisdiction.” The SSPX has no ordinary jurisdiction over Christ’s faithful. Let us remember what Archbishop Lefebvre said on the subject of supplied “jurisdiction”:

“It must be stressed that a supplied authority does not have the same characteristics as the authority normally existing in the Church. It is exercised case by case, so it is not habitual, that is, persons who enjoy it can withdraw and the supplied authority has no power to make them return. It is dependent on the need of the faithful, given the state of crisis. Insofar as the faithful need these bishops or priests, for the salvation of their souls, the Church creates this link of authority among them. All this shows that supplied jurisdiction gives a limited authority to be exercised with a certain discretion. Since the jurisdiction (authority) of the bishop has not come to him by Roman nomination, but from the necessity of the salvation of souls, he must exercise it with special discretion.” (20th Feb. 1991, quoted in Sel de la Terre No.87, p.142)

The sad case of Mrs V is additional evidence that the domination of the SSPX has today become a perverse domination. The good of souls is no longer the aim of the SSPX authorities, except in a purely rhetorical way. The repressive acts, exclusions and sanctions which it is sowing display a grave moral and doctrinal drift.

Bishop Fellay said clearly, on 20th December at the seminary in La Reja: “The official Church is the visible church, it is the Catholic Church, full stop.” All who dare contradict this peremptory judgement will be destroyed and crushed one way or another. But don’t worry, we can rest easy: nothing has been signed!