Conclusion Two – I must be objective

  1. Conclusion: I must consider the matters at hand objectively. I must be prepared to acknowledge that it is possible that the Superior General or other superiors within the Society could make a mistake. I must be prepared to acknowledge that men are weak, that liberalism exists in the year 2012 and that the Society is not exempt from attack by the very errors that caused the society to be created. I must be prepared to acknowledge that the superiors of the Society are not infallible and that they could try to enter into an agreement with Rome in circumstances where the Society should not do so. I cannot choose to ignore the truth because the truth may be difficult or painful. I cannot choose to ignore the truth on the basis that I cannot understand why someone does something. I do not need to know or understand the internal disposition of a person and I do not seek to know or understand why a person does or does not do something – I only know what the person does or does not do. That is, the reality is the truth!

1.1.     In order to consider the matter we must be prepared to consider what is real – that is, what we see rather than what we feel, what a man says (his actual words) rather than what we think he says or what we think he means, what a man does rather than why he does it etc.

1.2.     If we are trying to determine the truth of something we must not start with a bias or a preconceived interpretation of the evidence – rather we must be “open” and prepared to “test” the evidence.

1.3.     Whilst we should be prepared to analyse what the Pope or a given Bishop or Priest or any person says or does we should note that our analysis, our questioning, our criticism, even our correction of such words or doings are not done by way of judgement of the person.

1.4.     History shows us that churchmen have been in error on many occasions. In fact, out of some thousands of bishops in the Church during (and after) the Second Vatican Council there was only a handful who rejected the errors – among them Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop De Castro Mayer.

1.5.     I am uncomfortable when the response to my queries about the state of the Society and Rome is to the effect that “the issues are not your responsibility” or “you are not qualified to understand” or “the decision rests with the Superior…”. I conclude that my duty is to find the truth and that in charity I must ask, in fact, demand the truth.