Readers may recall that an appeal to correct the errors found in Amoris Laetitia, signed by 45 theologians, was sent to Rome back in June of 2016.

The contents of their evaluation of Francis’ love letter to Satan (aka Amoris Laetitia) was supposed to be kept confidential, but the document was leaked shortly thereafter and made available on various websites. (LifeSite News was one of them, but they subsequently, presumably at the request of its authors, took it down.)

Well, the full text of the theologians’ critique is once again available on the internet; including on the website of the Society of St. Pius X – oh, and without commentary.

I, for one, find this rather telling.

Recall that in the spring of this year, Fr. Jean Michel Gleize, SSPX, offered a detailed critique of his own wherein he concluded that Amoris Laetitia contains nothing properly heretical.

It was only after seeking clarification from the U.S. District House that I was able to report to readers that this is the Society’s official position.

The 45 theologians, however, have a different take.

I will have more to say on their evaluation in a later post, but for now let it be known that they have concluded that no less than eleven of the propositions set forth in Amoris Laetitia should be “censured as haeretica.”

The definition of haeretica provided by the 45 theologians is essentially the same that Fr. Gleize used in the process of making the Society’s case.

The theologians write:

Heretical propositions, censured as ‘haeretica’, are ones that contradict propositions that are contained in divine revelation and are defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

I invite you to read the full text of the 45 theologians’ evaluation for yourself. It has some flaws that we will discuss later, indeed, but they are to be applauded for not shying away from calling heresy by its true name.

With respect to the SSPX, their publication of the 45 theologians’ critique, offered without any commentary much less a rebuttal, raises some serious questions:

For one, does the Society now wish to modify its previous position; i.e., does it wish to endorse the conclusion of the 45 theologians that Amoris Laetitia is deserving of no less than eleven censures for heresy?

My sense is that they do not, which is a pity for more than one reason.

The question that remains, therefore, is why would the SSPX publish any text on its official website – without any qualification whatsoever – unless it is willing to place its own stamp of approval on its contents?

Before we attempt to answer that question, let it be known that the Society’s publication of a paper that departs from their own position, in this case that of the 45 theologians, is not an isolated occurrence.

In May, I called readers’ attention to the fact that the SSPX had published an article under the title, Why is the pope silent on the dubia , that consisted of excerpts from a presentation given by Claudio Pierantoni at the laity-led conference on Amoris Laetitia held in Rome on April 22, 2017.

In it, one will find such ridiculous assertions as “[Francis] is the victim of a general historical alienation that affects large sectors of theological teaching” (a victim!), and Amoris Laetitia doesn’t even contain anything that is “directly heterodox.”

Does the SSPX really wish to make these positions their own?

Personally, I don’t believe that it does.

I also recently pointed out that the SSPX published (again, without any commentary of its own) the LifeSite News article raving about Cardinal Burke’s Roman Life Forum speech wherein he held up John Paul the Great Ecumenist, Vatican Council II and the New Evangelization as examples of faithfulness to the message of Fatima.

Does the SSPX really wish to make these positions their own?

Personally, I don’t believe that it does.

Now, back to the question at hand:

Why does the Society publish any content on its official website that clearly does not represent its own position?

The only answer that I can come up with is that the SSPX of today is severely lacking in conviction; i.e., it is pleased to play, or at least to give the appearance of playing, on both sides of the fence.

At this, let’s recap just some of the disparate positions found on the SSPX official website as mentioned in this post:

– Amoris Laetitia does not contain anything deserving of the censure of heresy.

– Amoris Laetitia contains statements that simply “favor heresy.”

– Amoris Laetitia does not contain anything that can even be considered “heterodox.”

– Amoris Laetitia contains no less than eleven propositions that deserve the censure of heresy.

– Francis, the author of Amoris Laetitia is a victim of the age.

– Our Lady’s appeal as given at Fatima, including for the consecration of Russia, “is not for just once … [but] must be taken up by generation after generation, in accordance with the ever new ‘signs of the times.’”

Could an innocent soul browsing the website of the SSPX be blamed for coming away wondering exactly what the Society actually believes? More importantly, could such a person be expected to come away knowing the truth?

How tragic it is that the Priestly Society that once published the journal Si, si, No no – a name taken from Matthew 5:37, “But let your speech be, ‘Yes, yes,’ ‘No,no’; and whatever is beyond these comes from the Evil One.” – now finds itself in such a pitiable state.

Let us pray that the SSPX recovers the zeal that it once possessed, and soon.

NOTE: I am still awaiting a response to the inquiry that I sent to the U.S. District House asking if any of the money collected from their faithful is sent by the SSPX to Rome; either directly to Peter’s Pence or otherwise. If you who are reading this belong to a Society chapel, given the kinds of activities in which the “Holy” See in our day is engaged , you may consider pressing the matter in whatever way you can in the hope that the answer received will be, “No, not one nickel.”

Share this post on: Follow us on: