John L. Allen, Jr. at Crux wrote about the SSPX and the former SSPX Bp. Williamson, a renegade who has by now consecrated another bishop.
There is something pretty chilling in Allen’s tone, when you read him carefully. You’ll see what I mean.
Here the title, and then I’ll skip down:
Why détente between Rome and traditionalists was always a pipe dream
[… there’s a LOT to take exception to in the top part of the article, but this is where Mr. Allen really shows how that segment of the Church thinks….]
The head of the society, Bishop Bernard Fellay, is viewed as a realist who sees his movement’s future eventually in coming in from the cold. His freedom of action, however, has been constrained by the more intransigent elements in the fold.
It’s conceivable that without Williamson and his following, Fellay may be able to move more boldly. [HEY! Williamson has been out of the SSPX since 2012! But who would expect the MSM to get this right. After all, these are just a bunch of kooks, right? Hardly worth the time.]
[This is where you need to pay attention!] One might wonder why any of this matters to the Vatican. The Society of St. Pius X claims a global following of around 1 million, which, if true, would represent .01 percent of the full Catholic population of 1.2 billion. [.1%] Investing resources in trying to lure such a relative footnote back might seem disproportionate.
“relative footnote“? “disproportionate“? Right… it’s only a million people.
There’s more, along with Allen’s strange moral equivalence between traditionalists and the terrorist Yasser Arafat, and, later on, conjectures based on his assumption about SSPX being schism, yadda yadda. Whatever. I, too, am not super optimistic these day about what might happen between the Holy See and the SSPX. I’d like to think that a Pope for the “peripheries” might show some mercy and compassion but I won’t hold my breath.
The take away from Allen’s piece is that 1 million followers of the SSPX – or, I suppose, all others who stay close to our Catholic tradition – don’t merit attention or pastoral care from the Church.
That’s like saying that they don’t count. They’re nobodies.
Could anyone get away with saying that about any other marginalized group in the Church?
Apply that to pet groups of the marginalized whom liberals lionize and see how they react.
Divorced and civilly remarried who actually still go to church regularly and want to receive Communion? Nah, they’re a tiny number compared to the universal Church of over 1 billion. They don’t merit our resources and time. Active open homosexuals who denounce the Church’s teaching concerning morals but who go to Mass regularly and want to receive Communion? Nah, there aren’t many of them. We shouldn’t waste our resources. Wacky women religious into cosmic consciousness and moving beyond the Church with their dying orders and institutes? Nah, not many of them left, so let’s put our resources somewhere else.
Within the Church, the only “periphery” that matters are those which either explicitly reject Catholic tradition or who have no contact with it.
Could some Cardinal please argue for a “tolerated but not accepted” status for Catholics who embrace the Catholic tradition?
Moderation queue is ON
Fr. Thomas Rosica, who has in the past threatened to sue a Canadian blogger, immediately piled on by retweeting Allen’s link. HERE
Moderation queue is ON