Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate - What Ignited the Firestorm - Updated

+

JMJ

June 30, 2014
(update at end of post) 

My exchange with Fr. Greiger (FI) reminded me of a post that he had made on his blog in May of this year.

I had forgotten about it and the key snippets of information that it contained.

Namely, what problem he and his four like-minded companions, had with their superiours. A problem that was severe enough to refuse submission.

1. the authoritarian implementation of Summorum Pontificum,
2. the manipulation of the General Chapter of 2008 in this regard,
3. the traditionalist drift in the seminary and apostolic work,
4. our association with known sympathizers of the traditionalist movement,
5. the arbitrary character of the government of the Institute and absence of any mechanism to address this problem,
6. the ways in which all these problems had been affecting the formation program,
7. the influence of the former Mother General of the Sisters on the Founder,
8. and the increasingly radicalized character of the sisters’ community. (source)

In the light of the vow of obedience taken by Fr. Greiger et al, do any of these elements constitute a sinful act that would render the act of obedience itself sinful as per St. Thomas Aquinas?

A quick recap:

The Catholic principle  of obedience as laid out by St. Thomas is as follows:

1. The person issuing the command is in a position of authority over the inferior
2. The command is within the scope of the superior's authority
3. The command does not require the inferior to sin, either in the immediate or proximate case.
4. If the above conditions are met then the person has an obligation to obey. Disobedience in this case is sinful.
5. Whereas if #3 is lacking (sinful command) then the person has an obligation to disobey
6. Whereas if #1 or #2 is lacking the person practice greater virtue in obeying a command that is not obligatory.

Now if conditions 1,2, and 3 are met - then the inferior whether they trust the superior or not are obliged to obey and it is sinful not to do so.

Reviewing the justifications for their appeal what do we find, in spite of a lack of details?

Category 1: Authority

Items 1, 5, 6 are focused on the authorities within the FFI and the use of that authority.  

Without knowing further details, I would guess that item 2 could be classified in this category as the 'manipulation' was probably something done to thwart the revolt that he appears to be a party to.

At its root they have a problem with authority that was not in accord with their way of thinking.

Category 2: Traditionalist Culture

Items 3, 4, 8 appear to possess a locum of 'traditionalism'.  Perhaps item 7 likewise has a 'traditionalist' root. 

Thoughts and Motivations

Basically, Fr. Greiger's cultural assumptions were at odds with the traditionalist culture that was starting to take hold within the FFI.  

Simply put, he doesn't like people who are not aligned with his cultural assumptions.  If these people have authority over him, he will seek to remove them from that position of authority rather than submit.  

In other words, he is prejudiced and intolerant to those that hold opinions contrary to his own.

Following this, unable to convince his superiors to alter the direction at odds with the way he and his confreres would run the show and following the model (see last post) they have altered their perception of obedience and launched the appeal.  Of course, it is possible that they don't have a concept of obedience that is consistent with St. Thomas' principles.

The similarities to the 1999 FSSP chapter coup d'etat are quite evident. The similarity flows to the situation at the Second Vatican Council, where a determined minority of Modernists holding a different set of cultural norms succeeded in imposing those norms on others. Instead of separating themselves from the Church in the early 20th Century, they were determined to change the Church to their way of thinking instead of submitting.

From the reports of the last year it is obvious that those who hold a different culture are succeeding to have the FFI re-aligned to their image.

As an excuse Fr. Greiger provided the following:

Every Catholic, including a religious, has a right to appeal to higher superiors and submit for their consideration matters of conscience, even when it concerns things that don’t involve sin. In fact, such a right is explicitly mentioned in the Rule of St. Francis (c. 10), where it speaks not only of matters of conscience, but also of the inability to live according to the rule of law.(source)

It is always interesting how anti-traditionalists have recourse to legalism when confronted with 'trads'.  But throw it all away for everyone else.

So what of the other members of the FFI who did not hold with Fr. Greiger et al's opinions and prejudices?

Will they have the same opportunity to stage their own coup d'etat?

I think that highly unlikely.

In the Church today, the law is applied with rigour against the 'crypto-lefevbrists' (what a term) and the unorthodox are left untouched.

Might makes right.

The point is that five members of the FFI, Fr. Greiger one of them, were unable to accept a cultural change set about by their superiour. Instead of submitting, they rebelled and appealed to a higher authority.

This higher authority has agreed with them, for the time being.

However, that is likely to change sooner or later because the culture of an organization that has 2000 years of history does not change easily.  In fact that culture, which I would propose lie mostly in those of the 'crypto-lefebvrist' bent represents the culture of the Catholic Church which is based upon the values, beliefs and assumptions of the religion founded by Christ.

When the Pope reaffirms those values, beliefs and assumptions, the 'vetus' culture will re-assert itself.  Although, I suspect that the vetus culture will show more mercy towards the revolutionaries that they have shown.

P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience

Addendum:
I was perusing a post by Badger Catholic that led me to the following assertion from Fr. Greiger:

The author presumes to suggest that the Founder and the friars who support him advocate the “hermeneutic of continuity” taught by Benedict XVI, when, in fact, under the Founder’s direction our Institute became one of principle instruments of the traditionalist movement in Italy to undermine the authority of that same hermeneutic.  This is the kind of lie and half-truth that has been driving the Institute into deeper crisis for a very long time. 

and further on ...

It is about the arbitrary rule of a small group of friars who abused their authority and then have used every Machiavellian tactic to protect it.  And they continue to do so.

He goes on, but I shan't bother digging any deeper because basically, as a Friar devoted to poverty he uses a luxurious amount of words (I am not so bound of course).

I wonder why the accusations above weren't included in the eight elements in a more explicit manner.  Surely, that would have been better.

Father Greiger accused me of being 'passive/aggressive'.  Well, from what I've read he is simply 'aggressive' and there is something else.

I've encountered the same tone and mode of declaration in other places.  I will admit that I did not expect to find it in a religious like Fr.Greiger.

Where have I observed such behaviour?  In the 'resistance' to the SSPX, and extreme traditionalists who have a problem accepting some elements of fact.

Father Greiger's response is simply that of a man who has had some of his fundamental assumptions challenged and is reacting.

The core is that he disagreed with the "arbitrary rule of a small group of friars who abused their authority".  Everything else is window dressing and attempts to justify his actions and disassociate the consequences from them.

He has now replaced the 'rule of a small group of friars' with another 'arbitrary rule of a small group of friars'.  Presumably, since he is allowed to publish his blog, he is one of the new 'small group of friars' that are in charge.

Truly, my wife is right that people make a rash accusation often times they are guilty of that exact fault that they see in others.

The chastisement of the FFI is a good case study of why the SSPX, when regularized, has to report soley to the Pope.  Because the only way a different culture will truly be tolerated and allowed to flourish is when the person in charge (be it Pope Francis, or Pope) will support them in the cultural warfare that will occur.

The only way that this will be possible is when the Pope shares at least some of the core fundamental assumptions of the SSPX and other like minded organizations.

If the likes of Fr. Greiger et al will go to such extremes as dismantling an order such as the FFI, who were just coming to the same conclusions as other traditionalists and label their opponents as 'crypto-lefebvrists' - what would the cultural denizens do to the real thing - the SSPX?