ABOUT THE CHURCH AND THE VATICAN

Here is my translation of the APCOM interview with Mons. Fellay of the FSSPX. It struck me as almost a hostile interview, with a distinct intention to elicit a 'Gotcha!' moment, especially with the insistent questions about Bishop Williamson.


A wide-ranging interview
with Mons. Fellay

July 31, 2009


The start of doctrinal discussions with the Vatican this autumn, and a strong criticism of some Jewish circles ("They should leave us in peace!") because they seem to be putting heavy pressure on the Holy See.

Also, that Vatican-II must be 'transcended'; the hope that eventually the FSSPX will become a 'prelature' within the Church; the divisions which exist even within the Church of Rome; and that the FSSPX is not expelling Mons. Richard Williamson.

There is a criticism of L'Osservatore Romano for concerning itself with Michael Jackson, Harry Potter or John Calvin, and a very positive opinion of Benedict XVI as 'a person of integrity who cares about what is good for the Church".

Mons. Bernard Fellay, superior-general of the FSSPX, granted a full-court interview with Apcom at the society's mother house in Menzingen, near Zurich, Switzerland.

Completely immersed in the greenery of the Swiss countryside, among the cows and the sound of church bells, the FSPPX headquarters is identified with the sign, 'Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X - Generalhaus' [German for 'FSSPX - General HQ'].

The room where Mons. Fellay receives us has a photo of Mons. Marcel Lefebvre and one of the Pope. When we expressed surprise over this, Mons. Fellay said, "Of course, we have a photo of the Pope. We are Catholics!"



The Pope is in Val D'Aosta for a vacation. You are not very far from there. Have you had any contact, or is there any sort of communication between his entourage and you?
No, absolutely not. We should leave the Pope in peace on his vacation. We are pursuing what needs to be done through the Vatican, with the persons who have been assigned to handle the doctrinal discussions. But we haven't tried to reach the Pope. He is on vacation!


Do you anticipate a trip to Rome soon?
No date has been fixed as yet for the start of the dialog, but we can presume it will be in the fall. I will be in Rome at that time, but there is no precise date as yet. A commission of 3-4 persons has been named, but we cannot provide the names now, if only to avoid any pressures.


Do you think that there is too much attention by the Vatican to the expectations of the Jewish world on the 'Williamson case' as well as on the Good Friday prayer?
Yes, I think so. I myself am embarrassed - apart from what happened with Mons. Williamson - when I see Jewish leaders who concern themselves with the affairs of the Catholic Church.

It is not their religion. They should leave us in peace. These are questions that concern the Catholic Church only. If we wish to pray for the Jews, we will pray for them, in the way we want to. I don't know if they pray for us at all, but that's their problem.


So you think the Pope and the Vatican are under pressure from the Jewish world?
Certainly. It is a very sensitive subject, a hot one, and I think we should get out of such a climate, which is not good. There was an unfortunate chain of events that should never have happened [regarding Mons. Williamson]. And in this sense, one can understand the anger of the Jews. I understand it, and I deplore what happened.


In the Motu Proprio Ecclesiae Unitatem, the Pope points out that 'doctrinal questions' obviously still remain, and that until these are cleared up, 'the FSSPX has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot exercise any ministry legitimately'. What did you think about this?
That nothing much has changed. What has changed is that this new disposition will focus our relationship on the doctrinal questions.

But that is not really a change. It is a process that in progress and which we first requested in 2000. So the journey goes on.

What the Pope wrote is along the lines of what Rome has been saying since 1976, so it is nothing new. We have a clear position that we have had for some time, and which we will maintain even if we are considered illegal.

We have serious reasons to justify the fact that we exercise our ministry. And these are that the Church finds itself in circumstances that we consider a 'state of necessity'.

For example, when a great catastrophe strikes any country, it can take extraordinary measures, step out of the ordinary structures, because the system is in crisis, and therefore, everyone who can help must help.

So it is not our own personal wishes but rather the needs of the faithful that demand help from anyone who can help. This 'state of necessity' is generalized enough in the Church - there are exceptions, of course - to assure us that we are legitimately exercising our apostolate.


What juridical status do you expect for the FSSPX - a prelature, a society of apostolic life?
It will depend on Rome, obviously, which has the authority to decide on the structure. Their perspective is to respect to the maximum the concrete reality that we represent.

My hope is that we shall be adequately protected in exercising our apostolate so we can do good without having to be impeded by juridical reasons.

We hope for a prelature, but I really do not have a particular preference. And about the timing, I cannot say - everything depends on Rome.


Bishop Williamson considers Vatican II a 'poisoned cake' that should be thrown into the 'waste basket'; Bishop Tissier de Mallerais said it should be 'annulled'; and Bishop Alfonso de Gallareta thinks "there's not much that can be salvaged' from the Council. Is there a split within the FSSPX itself? If so, how will you resolve it? The Vatican says there is a split within your society.
Allow me to say that I don't see unity within the Vatican itself. The problem with the Church today is not us. We became a problem only because we say there is a problem.

But even if you may have the impression of opposing and even contradictory statements, we have no internal rifts. For instance, about the Council, we can well say that almost everything about it can be rejected. Just as we can say that we should try to save what can be saved.

But we cannot all say the same thing about the Council. It is a mixture - there is some good, there is some bad.

The Pope himself, in maintaining that there should be a hermeneutic of continuity, that Vatican II did not indicate a rupture, rejects the interpretation of the Council as a rupture.


Is Mons. Williamson a problem?
He is a completely marginal problem. What he said has nothing to do with the crisis in the Church, with the fundamental problem that we in the FSSPX have been dealing with for 30 years.

With him, it's a question of history. The question of how many Jews were killed in World War II is not a question of faith, it is not even a religious question - it is a historical issue.

Obviously, I believe that he failed to deal with the issue as he should have, and we distance ourselves from him on this. But as for the religious positions of the Fraternity about Vatican II, I see no problem with Williamson.


When Williamson says that Vatican-II is a poisoned cake that should be tossed into the waste basket, don't you find that statement too strong? Do you agree?
It's a polemical statement, but I don't condemn him for that. So many statements these days are made for polemical reasons - a provocation to make people think.

I would express the same concept differently, but I can't say that I do not agree.

I would say that we should transcend the Council to return to what the Church has always taught and from which the Church can never separate itself. At some point, we should transcend a Council which declared itself to be 'pastoral', not 'doctrinal', which had intended to concern itself with the actual contingencies of the Church at the time. Things change, and so many things about the Council have already been transcended.


Bishop Williamson promised to be silent but he continues to speak out. Will he be sanctioned? And if he continues to maintain that no compromise is possible with Rome about Vatican II, will he be expelled?
It is not true that Williamson continues to speak out. He said something once [after the January uproar]... Also, we did not ask him to be quiet about everything! We asked him to keep his silence about a very specific subject. Whatever he said afterwards was minor. I don't think it even matters... At the moment, I see no reason to expel him.

Right now, there is a process under way. He has seriously damaged his own reputation. I cannot imagine anything worse that the situation in which he already finds himself. He is sufficiently punished, he has been marginalized and relieved of any responsibility.


About the Council, will you accept a compromise with Rome?
We don't have to make any compromises about the Council. I have no intention of making any compromises. Truth does not support compromise.

And we are not asking for compromise over the Council. We want clarity.


The recent ordinations were seen as a provocation. Would it not have been better to avoid them at this sensitive time?
There was no provocation at all. Some bishops availed of the occasion to make noises that it was a provocation. But it was not, neither for Rome nor for us. [The APCOM interviewer should have known that the FSSPX has been ordaining priests every year for the past few decades without being denounced by the Vatican. Which did not do so this time, either. But this is yet another example of the interviewer's hostility.]

We are a priestly fraternity whose purpose is to train priests. To impede the last act of formation which is ordination would be like keeping us from breathing!

Moreover, these ordinations were previously programmed, and we knew that the recall of the excommunication has led to a new situation that is better than before but not yet perfected. For us, it was normal to proceed as we had done before with our activities, including the ordinations.


L'Osservatore Romano has recently published articles on Calvin, on Michael Jackson and on Harry Potter. What do you think of that?
I ask myself whether it is really the role of the Osservatore to concern itself with these things. That's my first question. The second is, what they write about these persons - are these really correct? I look at such articles with a critical eye.


Do you think that with this Pope, there may finally be a conclusion to the long-lasting problem with the FSSPX?
I certainly think there is reason to hope. I think we should pray a lot - the questions are very sensitive. It has been 40 years that we are where we are, and not for personal reasons, but because serious things that have to do with the faith and the future of the Church.

We certainly see that the Pope has an authentic will to get to the bottom of this problem and we welcome that with great satisfaction. Let us pray and hope that with the grace of God we will agree on something that is good for the Church and for us.


What do you think of Benedict XVI?
He is a person of integrity, who considers the situation and the life of the Church very seriously.





Fr. Scalese has a reaction to the APCOM interview:


Clarity, not compromise
Translated from

Aug. 1, 2009


After acknowledging the widespread reaction to his 'Open Letter to Mons. Fellay' from the Catholic blogosphere, Fr. Scalese continues:

In general, the comments have been more than favorable, with a few wrong notes [there is always someone who has something to say about everything and everyone].

Of course, I did not write the letter to receive appreciation from whoever, but simply to help promote, if possible, reconciliation within the Church.

In any case, I am pleased that the climate, on both sides, appears to be positive: I seem to perceive in everyone a great desire to repair the break - which makes us hope that the dialog will be successful.

Obviously, there has been no official reaction from the FSSPX: I did not anticipate any nor ask for it. It is enough for me to know that my letter reached its destination.

In any case, yesterday I read with pleasure APCOM's interview with Mons. Fellay, which comes a few days after my open letter, but I consider it a kind of indirect answer to my letter.

In the interview, the FSSPX superior general does not say anything new (except that the discussions with the Vatican will probably start in the fall) and he reiterates the thesis of a 'state of necessity' in the Church to justify the position of the Fraternity.

Mons. Fellay, who is an intelligent man, usually knows how to fence himself off well enough from insidious questioning. But this time, I seem to detect a certain embarrassment in his response to possible divisions within the Fraternity.

He counter-attacks instead, pointing to divisions even within the Vatican, but is less sure about justifying differences of opinion within his society. For instance, about Williamson's statement that Vatican-II is a poisoned cake that should tossed into the wastebasket, he says, "I would express the concept differently, But I cannot say that I disagree."

But it is more than understandable: anyone, in his place, would have answered the same way.

Most interesting his Mons. Fellay's response to the question: "Would you accept any compromise with Rome about Vatican II?" And he says, "We don't want a compromise. We want clarity".

I think we can all agree about this. It is not a question of making compromises - this can be done on other questions, for instance, on canonical and disciplinary matters.

It is really a problem of clarity. A clarity that not just Mons. Fellay adn the Lefebvrians expect, but which the entire Church urgently needs.

Only in clarity (in the 'splendor of truth') are unity and reconciliation possible.