+
JMJ
I've come across Gary Campbell's articles on Where Peter Is and noticed that he seems to have very strong biases, assumptions and reactions to anything that runs against these.
Driven by curiosity I have found a copy of his letter to Bishop Fellay explaining his reasons for leaving the SSPX only five years after his ordination in Winona. I was surprised to learn that I was present for his ordination.
Given this, I was interested in reviewing his letter to Bishop Fellay. There will be two versions in this post. The unblocked and blocked letter. The unblocked is, obviously the full letter. The block, meaning unnecessary text will be blocked out, is a technique I use to remove ancillary text while focusing on key phrases.
After completing my read, I believe that the root of much of what caused the issues with Fr. Campbell could be the seeds of the 'resistance' that, when the same perceptions were challenged by continued negotiations with Rome resulted in the necessary clarity on the issues he brought forward.
It also confirms something that I observed between the priests ordained when Bishop Williamson was rector of the seminary and when and Fr. De La Roux (sp) was rector of the seminary. Perhaps if Mr. Campbell has swallowed the resistance cool-aid he would be one of them.
P^3
Unblocked
May 4, 1999
Dear Bishop Fellay,
After long thought and prayer, I have decided to leave the Society of St. Pius X. I owe it to you to say why, and so I do so below. I do not intend to tell the people my reasons, but if individuals ask, I shall tell them.
We say we cannot follow the Holy Father, except when he confirms tradition. How do we know then, when he confirms the tradition? We know, we affirm, when the present Pontiff's statements correspond with those of previous Pontiffs. That judgement is necessarily subjective, and fraught with danger. The private interpretation of acts of the Magisterium is no less uncatholic than the private interpretation of Scripture! How do we know our interpretation is the correct one? And how do we know when a legitimate development of discipline, liturgy or even of doctrine has in fact occurred? Do we all have a grasp of the historical, social, prudential and theological factors that may very well justify such a change? The Holy See has the divine guarantee of the assistance of the Holy Spirit: we, however, do not.
And in any case, if such dissent is to be made, is it not to be made by the individual conscience, and not by the government of the Society? Yet if individual liberty were allowed, there would be chaos! So the very paradox of, in practice refusing the direction of the Holy See on one hand, and yet constituting ourselves as the judges and guardians of tradition (and this is precisely the language we use) in the Holy See's place on the other, shows me per absurdum the illogicity of the Society's position.
Despite our laboured attempts to theologically explain things away, we must state that the Church has erred: that is, it has failed to lead souls to heaven. It is, we say, objectively a sin to receive, give or assist at Novus Ordo rites and to submit to the Novus Ordo Magisterium (the consequence indeed, which we refuse to formulate in actual words, is that it is sinful to have a juridical relationship with the Pope and the College of Bishops - hence our condemnation of the Indult, St Peter's, etc. ) Despite our earnest protests to the contrary, we cannot avoid practical heresy in asserting that the Church is not indefectible.
Originally I came to the Society of St. Pius X to seek freedom from the liberals: I did not want them to do my thinking for me. But now I find that the traditionalists are doing my thinking for me! The only true freedom is in union with the See of Peter; I now realize that. Consider another frightening conclusion, if we are right. If the Church has not been faithful to tradition now, what guarantee is there that she will not fail again in the future, or, for that matter, that she was always faithful in the past? What becomes of our assent of faith to what God has revealed through His Church?!
And what is this strange being we talk about; the Novus Ordo, or Conciliar Church? It seems there are two Churches: the Catholic Church, to which we belong, and to which the Pope, if he thought about it, would belong (and so, say the Society, we really are in communion with the Pope), and the Conciliar Church, which is an apostate Church, but which, nevertheless has the hierarchy and all ordinary jurisdiction! What is this hybrid Vat 2 Church; this monster, which is half Christ, and half Satan?
Another unusual quality of the Society is its adherence, in matters of faith & morals, to the opinions of its Founder. For example, in "Legitimacy and Scope of our Marriage Tribunals" (1998, Rev Violette’s translation) it is stated "The authority of our founder suffices for us to accept these instances (that is, the proposal to create a canonical commission) in the same way as we have accepted the episcopal consecrations of 1998."
As the Founder of an ecclesial society Archbishop Lefebvre did indeed have authority but only insofar as it pertained to the Society and its end as defined quite clearly by the Statutes, which is, the sanctification of its members. As a bishop and doctor his authority did not extend beyond that of any other bishop of the Catholic Church. And so he, and his successors, have no authority to bind his subjects in any matter of faith & morals. Yet we find in our ranks that such and such an opinion is held, because Archbishop Lefebvre held it. One priest of the Society recently admitted to me a phenomenon I had noticed for some time, that is, that there exists a climate of 'political correctness' which we fear to contravene. When I recently questioned Bishop Tissier de Mallerais concerning the Canonical Commission and marriage annulments, I was reported to my District Superior, who promptly informed my prior. The District Superior described my concerns as a "temptation." I do not put this phenomenon to the Archbishop himself; rather, to his followers.
You will say, you would not dare say such a thing if you had known the man. True, I never met him. I believe his moral integrity which even his enemies admit. However, sanctity does not mean infallibility, or even exclude objective moral error. My authority is not a man, but the Church. I was once told by a priest, quite high up in the Society ranks, that if Archbishop Lefebvre had said that John Paul II were not the Pope, he would believe him. On his authority! And this aura of quasi-infallibility has passed on from the Archbishop to the Society itself. Do not frightening possibilities arise in your mind? Perhaps we have indeed deluded ourselves into believing that the Holy Spirit does preserve us from error!
So will I return to the Novus Ordo, as the dog returns to his vomit? No, I shall return to the Catholic Church. I labour under no illusions. I am not going to greener pastures. The Lord’s field is brown and harsh. I have no doubt there will be many times I will sigh for the security and peace I enjoyed, but what kind of security? What kind of peace? We have created for ourselves a nice little air-conditioned world, with our churches and solemn liturgies, our sermons. It is peaceful and sunny, but outside, the storm rages. The world of the storm we shut out, condemn. But it is there where God’s People are, just as much as they are in our little sphere. And just as much children of the Creator as we are. As I was saying, the Lord's field is brown and harsh, but still, it is our country, our homeland. It begs for tillers to rejuvenate it. The Society cannot do it. It has shut itself out.
Of course I owe the Society a debt of gratitude for my priestly training. If the Church wishes me to continue the use of it, is up to Her authorities. But a child cannot follow his father into error, and so my conscience will not allow me to persist in the complete subversion of all ecclesiastical authority to our own judgement. Isn’t that what schism is?
I bear no-one ill, no-one harm, and thank all who have done me good. I am deeply sad for the people I leave. Yet my conscience is clear, and I must obey it.
Yours,
Fr. Gary Campbell
Blocked
May 4, 1999
Dear Bishop Fellay,
After long thought and prayer, I have decided to leave the Society of St. Pius X. I owe it to you to say why, and so I do so below. I do not intend to tell the people my reasons, but if individuals ask, I shall tell them.
We say we cannot follow the Holy Father, except when he confirms tradition. How do we know then, when he confirms the tradition? We know, we affirm, when the present Pontiff's statements correspond with those of previous Pontiffs. That judgement is necessarily subjective, and fraught with danger. The private interpretation of acts of the Magisterium is no less uncatholic than the private interpretation of Scripture! How do we know our interpretation is the correct one? And how do we know when a legitimate development of discipline, liturgy or even of doctrine has in fact occurred? Do we all have a grasp of the historical, social, prudential and theological factors that may very well justify such a change? The Holy See has the divine guarantee of the assistance of the Holy Spirit: we, however, do not.
Tradicat: I think this is more about alignment vs confirmation, but that's just my desire for precision. For example the contradiction between Pius XII and Dominus Jesus regarding the Church. I would be interested in knowing exactly to which judgements he was refering at that time.
And in any case, if such dissent is to be made, is it not to be made by the individual conscience, and not by the government of the Society? Yet if individual liberty were allowed, there would be chaos! So the very paradox of, in practice refusing the direction of the Holy See on one hand, and yet constituting ourselves as the judges and guardians of tradition (and this is precisely the language we use) in the Holy See's place on the other, shows me per absurdum the illogicity of the Society's position.
Despite our laboured attempts to theologically explain things away, we must state that the Church has erred: that is, it has failed to lead souls to heaven. It is, we say, objectively a sin to receive, give or assist at Novus Ordo rites and to submit to the Novus Ordo Magisterium (the consequence indeed, which we refuse to formulate in actual words, is that it is sinful to have a juridical relationship with the Pope and the College of Bishops - hence our condemnation of the Indult, St Peter's, etc. ) Despite our earnest protests to the contrary, we cannot avoid practical heresy in asserting that the Church is not indefectible.
Tradicat: So the first highlighted sentence is directly against a Dogma of the Catholic Church. I don't know who said it is a sin to receive, give or assist at the Novus Ordo - officially. I have met priests who hold that opinion. I also believe that this is the opinion of the 'resistors' who refuse to attend the SSPX masses for a similar reason. Perhaps Mr. Campbell's formation and perspective reflects a long seated problem in the SSPX that was excised in 2012 by the expulsion of the 'resistors'.
Originally I came to the Society of St. Pius X to seek freedom from the liberals: I did not want them to do my thinking for me. But now I find that the traditionalists are doing my thinking for me! The only true freedom is in union with the See of Peter; I now realize that. Consider another frightening conclusion, if we are right. If the Church has not been faithful to tradition now, what guarantee is there that she will not fail again in the future, or, for that matter, that she was always faithful in the past? What becomes of our assent of faith to what God has revealed through His Church?!
Tradicat: This is an inability to make clear distinctions.
And what is this strange being we talk about; the Novus Ordo, or Conciliar Church? It seems there are two Churches: the Catholic Church, to which we belong, and to which the Pope, if he thought about it, would belong (and so, say the Society, we really are in communion with the Pope), and the Conciliar Church, which is an apostate Church, but which, nevertheless has the hierarchy and all ordinary jurisdiction! What is this hybrid Vat 2 Church; this monster, which is half Christ, and half Satan?
Tradicat: I suspect that this is a result of being taught by Bishop Williamson and his indiscriminate use of the phrase. That said, the Church of Christ is being led by men who are, it appears in many cases, unworthy of the positions that they hold.
Another unusual quality of the Society is its adherence, in matters of faith & morals, to the opinions of its Founder. For example, in "Legitimacy and Scope of our Marriage Tribunals" (1998, Rev Violette’s translation) it is stated "The authority of our founder suffices for us to accept these instances (that is, the proposal to create a canonical commission) in the same way as we have accepted the episcopal consecrations of 1998."
As the Founder of an ecclesial society Archbishop Lefebvre did indeed have authority but only insofar as it pertained to the Society and its end as defined quite clearly by the Statutes, which is, the sanctification of its members. As a bishop and doctor his authority did not extend beyond that of any other bishop of the Catholic Church. And so he, and his successors, have no authority to bind his subjects in any matter of faith & morals. Yet we find in our ranks that such and such an opinion is held, because Archbishop Lefebvre held it. One priest of the Society recently admitted to me a phenomenon I had noticed for some time, that is, that there exists a climate of 'political correctness' which we fear to contravene. When I recently questioned Bishop Tissier de Mallerais concerning the Canonical Commission and marriage annulments, I was reported to my District Superior, who promptly informed my prior. The District Superior described my concerns as a "temptation." I do not put this phenomenon to the Archbishop himself; rather, to his followers.
You will say, you would not dare say such a thing if you had known the man. True, I never met him. I believe his moral integrity which even his enemies admit. However, sanctity does not mean infallibility, or even exclude objective moral error. My authority is not a man, but the Church. I was once told by a priest, quite high up in the Society ranks, that if Archbishop Lefebvre had said that John Paul II were not the Pope, he would believe him. On his authority! And this aura of quasi-infallibility has passed on from the Archbishop to the Society itself. Do not frightening possibilities arise in your mind? Perhaps we have indeed deluded ourselves into believing that the Holy Spirit does preserve us from error!
So will I return to the Novus Ordo, as the dog returns to his vomit? No, I shall return to the Catholic Church. I labour under no illusions. I am not going to greener pastures. The Lord’s field is brown and harsh. I have no doubt there will be many times I will sigh for the security and peace I enjoyed, but what kind of security? What kind of peace? We have created for ourselves a nice little air-conditioned world, with our churches and solemn liturgies, our sermons. It is peaceful and sunny, but outside, the storm rages. The world of the storm we shut out, condemn. But it is there where God’s People are, just as much as they are in our little sphere. And just as much children of the Creator as we are. As I was saying, the Lord's field is brown and harsh, but still, it is our country, our homeland. It begs for tillers to rejuvenate it. The Society cannot do it. It has shut itself out.
Of course I owe the Society a debt of gratitude for my priestly training. If the Church wishes me to continue the use of it, is up to Her authorities. But a child cannot follow his father into error, and so my conscience will not allow me to persist in the complete subversion of all ecclesiastical authority to our own judgement. Isn’t that what schism is?
Tradicat: Since he was laicized, I assume the answer was in the negative.
I bear no-one ill, no-one harm, and thank all who have done me good. I am deeply sad for the people I leave. Yet my conscience is clear, and I must obey it.
Tradicat: I guess that was true at the time and now may be a different situation as his writings seem to be more linked to his biases as opposed to fact. For example his accusation that 1P5 basically canonized +TdM.
Yours,
Fr. Gary Campbell
Gary Campbell's history can be read in Verbum 54 (link below).
P^3
https://archives.leforumcatholique.org/consulte/print.php?arch=2&num=81134
https://www.tradrecovery.com/post/why-i-left-the-sspx-fr-gary-campbell
Verbum 54
Comments
Post a Comment