Evil: The Bullying of Bishop Fellay…
The interview with Bishop Fellay, broadcast below by some outfit calling itself the Conflict Zone, is a combination of barracking and bullying by a journalist called Tim Sebastian – I’d never heard of him until now but he’s interviewed all sorts of top ranking politicians: I’ve watched a couple of those interviews. None of them compare to this evil attack on Bishop Fellay.
So outraged was I by the above evil interview, that I sent the following feedback via the Conflict Zone website, where they claim to “go beyond the normal sound-bite culture” but don’t: they are politically correct with bells on, and, as is evident in the eyes and body language of Mr Sebastian, apparently consumed with hatred of true Catholicism. It is laughable to see this media hack looking shock-horror at Bishop Fellay’s criticism of Pope Francis! Priceless. Talk about Theology For Dummies.
My feedback:
I have never seen such a nasty man as Tim Sebastian in my entire life. Bishop Fellay is so humble, and did not answer him as he should, and could have had he not been bullied. How I would LOVE to meet that nasty Seb and answer those loaded (and ridiculous) questions, because there IS an answer to them all, although PC numpties like Sebastian would never accept them. As for asking me my sins – I’d tell him where to shove his intrusive question, before asking for his ordination credentials and proof of faculty to hear Confessions. He is a nasty man and that interview was a work of evil. If he wants to interview the editor of Catholic Truth – here I am, ready and waiting. I tick all the boxes – “homophobic”, “transphobic” pro-traditional marriage between one man and one woman, tend to think it’s OK to assess the holocaust, question the numbers like any academic would question any historical event without being chucked in prison. Who’d raise an eyebrow if I queried the numbers in the Highland Clearances or Irish famine? What’s with it that we can’t study the holocaust? Only brain-dead journalists like (insert name) toe the PC line. Disgraceful interview. Absolutely disgraceful. What a really nasty man is Mr Tim Sebastian. Please make sure he reads this – it makes my day just thinking of the possibility.
Comment:
We will be sending the link to this discussion to Bishop Fellay because he needs to know that, in our humble opinion, he was far too nice and accommodating to that nasty journalist. It’s a pity that the Bishop tried his best to make his responses such that might lead Mr Sebastian to understand the Church better, which I believe would have been the Bishop’s purpose in being so long-suffering in the face of such blatant bullying; but that was never going to work with the likes of Tim Sebastian. We need to always say it how it is, as the saying goes.
Men with same-sex attraction should NOT be admitted to the seminary any more than an alcoholic should be given a job in a pub and the fact that there are female legislators does not mean there’s no issue (who is raising their children? Is Angela Merkel really an advert for femininity? Kidding, right?) And so on. Bishop Fellay is, it seems clear to me, as far as any of us can discern, a very holy soul. He’s also a very nice, pleasant and polite person. Both states of soul and mind are handicaps when dealing with dishonest journalists, like Sebastian. So, pray that I get to appear on the Conflict Zone. I usually avoid the kind of invitations which sometimes come my way from media outlets and I don’t enjoy the thought of them. This one, however, would be a dream come true. I must get my Guardian Angel on the case. Being neither holy nor nice, I think I’d really enjoy being interviewed by Mr Sebastian. Yes. Come to think of it – I’d LOVE it!
Perhaps in this thread, we might offer our suggestions, with respect, about the sort of information which the Bishop might have given in response to the barracking and bullying questioning.
Had the atmosphere been more conducive to a genuine conversation, centred on getting to the truth in the topics raised, what sort of answers might the Bishop have offered?
Comments (143)
Ed I thoroughly agree with you on The Holocaust no way am I saying it didn’t happen but what about the Modern Holocaust of obliterated Christianity in the Middle East . The silence is almost deafening and don’t let Israel say that they are not involved in their own Highland Clearances of Christians in Palestine. Also the worst Holocaust in the 20th century carried out by a Jew called Mr Stalin . Why are these atrocities not called to heel by the media -We know the answer as we know who controls the Media – .
FOF
Completely agree with you, excepting the fact that the worst holocaust in the 20th century was abortion, although I know Stalin did his best to even the score.
FOOF,
I think Stalin was originally a member of the Orthodox Church and trained to be a Priest at a seminary in his Georgian homeland. Get your facts right. Many Communists were Jewish, such as Trotsky and Zinoviev, but Stalin wasn’t one of them.
A point of correction:
Iosiph David Vissarianovich Djougashvili-Kotchba (Joseph Stalin), while himself not openly Jewish in his lifetime, is historically recorded as being very probably a descendant of Jews from Georgia.
Stalin refused to confirm or deny Jewish descent, but “Djou” in his name was also the name of a small Persian island where Portuguese/Jewish gypsies had once been banished, and from whence many subsequently migrated to Georgia. His surname translates to “Sons of Djou”
Being descended from Jews doesn’t make you one. I know a traditional Catholic lady who says she is of Jewish descent? Is she a Jew? No. She’s Catholic, just as Stalin was a Baptised and Confirmed member of the Georgian Orthodox Church.
CC,
It was a big question for Stalin even in his day. So why did he continually refuse to confirm or deny his descendance? It is very odd behaviour. If you consider the history of the Inquisition you will find that many publicly practicing Christians at the time were privately practicing Jews. So, having been to all outward appearances a one-time Christian does not mean that Stalin was unaware or unwelcoming of his Jewish heritage. The presecution of Christians in Russia under this man would seem to suggest a diabolical hatred of Christ and His Church. That track record does not fit with one who once entered a seminary. I don’t suppose we’ll ever know for sure.
CC . Approx 90% of Jews identify themselves not with their religion,but of their ancestry . The other 10% identify themselves with how much money they have . Stalin in that case WAS A. JEW.
I think Bishop Fellay was the victim of a nasty attack on the Church. I admire his charity and humility but I think he should have been stronger.
He should have told the journalist that individual sins are not up for discussion in public. The interviewer has no right to ask him about his sins. I’d have told him to get stuffed.
Petrus,
I do agree about the sin question. That was totally out of order. I would have asked Mr Sebastian what his sins are – apart from the obvious ones of pride and arrogance!
Totally horrific to watch this interview…Bishop Fellay should have got up an walked out.I remember the day that John Nott had enough of whirling bow tie Robin Day and pulled off his radio microphone and walked out the studio..Is there no end to this kind of thing? Agree, Tim Sebastian is a nasty little piece of work and enjoying every minute of this.So WHAT is this all about…if the SSPX is just a bunch of misguided nut jobs, then why is there so a constant vicious backlash from so many quarters….what does the SSPX do that annoys so many people…why not just ignore the Society and let it wither on the vine..why is the Society such an impediment to some grand plan being orchestrated by others and now being frustrated ?
Lupine22,
“Bishop Fellay should have got up an walked out”
Hear hear ! Without a doubt, that is what the good Bishop should have done.
Had Bishop Fellay walked out the lasting impression would have been that he had run away from difficult questions. I’m glad he didn’t walk out but rather stuck it out and won out at the end.
Having said this, I am still a little perplexed as to why Bishop Fellay agreed to this interview in the first place. And I’m just a tad disappointed that he didn’t get tough on occasion with that guy. I think Archbishop Lefebvre would have put Sebastian firmly in his place on a few points, and he wouldn’t have been meek about it. There are times when Poeple like Tim Sebastian need to be slapped down, especially when they insinuate evil intention with one-sided arguments.
Athanasius,
I’m glad you said that about wishing the Bishop had got tough on occasion – that is what I kept thinking (put the boot in!)
I also wish he hadn’t bottled it when asked about the Jews being the enemies of the Church. He did make the point that he didn’t mean every individual Jew, of course not, but I was wishing he had pointed out that history is history, that the Jews, as a people, as a nation, did execute Jesus and that to this day they reject him, so that does make them “enemies” if the opposite is “friends” because you don’t reject a friend, do you?
No Athanasius, Bp. Fellay should had NEVER done such interview to begin. Secondly, if he was so stupid to do it, at least at the first aggression he should have made known that man how to respect him by telling him of his rudity; but the problem is that Bp. Fellay was more interested in being politically correct than in making the church to be respected.
As a matter of fact, Bp Fellay showed the same weakness that lead him in the past to, erroneously, try to make arrangements with Modernist Rome. YOU DO NOT SPEAK WITH THE DEVIL.
“Who plays with fire gets burned” (old saying)
Bp. Fellay needs to call the things by their name. Francisco has received gays, divorcees, communists, Muslims, Jews and more but has not received many of the persecuted Christians we have all over the world. Each time he embraces one of those, he slaps the faces of our modern Martyrs and suffering persecuted Catholics all over the world.
Our Lord said that our answers should be “Yes,Yes, No, No” This mean: Clear and without calculations. When he was asked about why he appears to condemn homosexuals (for example) instead of going around an dgiving no answer he should have simply said that the Bible -in the OL- states that it is abomination and that -in the NT- says that the impure will not enter to heaven. He doesn’t need to invent politically correct answers. He needs to use God’d words and put up with the consequences.
John Latigo,
As Editor has said, we cannot judge souls. When Our Lady prophesied this crisis to come she did not call the popes/Vatican names. She gave the cure, Consecration of Russia, First Saturdays etc. That is our job to work to get these done, not to go into hiding calling names on our way.
I do agree that Bishop Fellay should have answered the questions more directly and without trying to appease that terrible interviewer, but we need to take into account his gentle nature. Not everyone is able to fight the battle in the same way.
This interview has enraged me past bearing, my teeth are ground down to stumps and I am sorry to say that my first reaction is that Bishop Fellay should have stood up at the end of the opening onslaught, wrapped the microphone round the evil, venomous, ignorant oaf’s head and stormed off. I am puzzled as to why this holy man of God agreed to be interviewed by such a brutal ignoramus – it appears to be dreadfully imprudent, and yet we know that Bishop Fellay is a very prudent man. Do we know why he agreed to do this? Have other interviewees been treated so disgustingly by this creature, or is this a unique piece of vileness that couldn’t have been foreseen?
Having watched this video over again and checked Tim Sebastian’s background,surely Bishop Fellay or his advisors MUST have known what was coming…..surely he could have terminated the interview within first 5 minutes. I would appear that Sebastian had the Bishop tied up in knots. I am now surprised on the naivety of the Bishop and a lack of jurisprudence in continuing to sit through a full 1/2 hour of relentless hectoring….if such a candidate was being interviewed for a job, he would not have fared well. I felt truly sorry for Bishop Fellay as he was really floundering under the barrage of hostile questions.
My guess is that certain people with a hidden agenda are trying to pull of a coup like the one they pulled off with Bishop Williamson at the time when Pope Benedict XVI was favouring the SSPX. Recent stories suggest that Pope Francis may be about to offer the SSPX an unconditional personal prelature and so out come the beasts again with their mics and cameras looking for an interview, setting traps. Bishop Fellay should refuse all interviews to secular sources because these people care not a jot about truth.
As for the setup that Bishop Fellay walked into, I think he handled it fairly well under the circumstances. To maintain patience and charity in the face of such a hostile and disrespectful interrogation is a true sign of His Excellency’s humility. As for the sin he revealed at the end, saying that he talked too much, that was aimed directly at motor mouth Tim Sebastian. Did you see his face when the Bishop said that? It was pricesless.
I also gave some extremely negative feedback to this so-called interview on the Combat Zone website. They claim to be pursuing “journalistic excellence” but clearly have a long way to go from their present position of gutter press. I detest these kinds of interrogatory interviews, which are less journalism than Nazi kangaroo court proceedings . The fact is these people have simply lost all human decency and good manners. Sensationalism is their business, not truth and objectivity. For me, it will be good press for the SSPX in the long run. Decent people everwhere will see what the real purpose of this interview was and it will backfire on the enmies of Tradition, I’m pretty sure of that.
I have noticed that the video has been posted on YouTube and a majority of feedback comments are equally identifying the evil that drove this interview.
Athanasius,
Your first paragraph is spot on. It’s a fact that whenever news of a Rome/SSPX rapprochement circulates, out come the haters of Tradition to stir up as much trouble as they can and keep the SSPX ‘out of the Church’ and ‘in their place’.
I should have clarified that whilst the enemies got what they wanted from Bishop Williamson some years ago, which is to say His Excellency recounting his personal fantasies about the Holocaust in the most imprudent manner, this time around they got nothing from Bishop Fellay. He handled them calmly and you could tell it was enraging Mr. Sebastian. They wasted their time.
I saw this yesterday and thought of this site when Tim Sebastian asks bishop Fellay about fidelity to the pope. It reminded me of an earlier thread on Sedevacantism, in which I regrettably embroiled myself in someone else’s sectarian dispute.
I have to agree with the posters here. The interview was a complete car crash. At points I felt very sorry for poor old Bishop Fellay. It was clear he is not accustomed to being interviewed by people who might take an opposing view, but I didn’t think the interviewer was particularly belligerent. I have seen a lot worse on Daily Politics. Normally, priests tend to only give interviews to sycophants with pre-approved questions. Lesson learned i guess.
Fair point Alex F….what now strikes me is can Bishop Fellay handle such hostile parties as Gerhard Mueller and the bunch of real anti-SSPX hard tickets in Rome.I suspect this unilateral agreement is a Trojan Horse. I am also taken aback with the naivety of the Bishop, he came across as a Holy Man,but too trusting and the interviewer was going to take no prisoners…I wonder who wrote this script for Tim Sebastian and carried out the research..it was a poisonous piece of journalism from start to finish.
Lupine
I’m not so sure that Cardinal Mueller is the same hostile person he once was. I suspect Francis’ Pontificate has caused him to re-think on a number of levels. He was the one who recently corrected any misunderstandings on Church teaching concerning the divorced and remarried. Maybe his eyes have been opened a little, who knows.
He didn’t ask him anything that isn’t readily available on the Internet. He will have had a couple of researchers digging up the dirt. It wouldn’t have been hard.
Alex F,
“Normally, priests tend to only give interviews to sycophants with pre-approved questions”
I am afraid I completely disagree. The media in the UK is very anti-Catholic so there aren’t any “sycophants” among the interviewers. They always go for the jugular when interviewing any Catholic, priest or lay person.
If you can give any examples of “pre-approved” questions being put to Catholic priests in the media, I would be genuinely interested in seeing that. As far I my experience goes, I’ve only ever seen the Church trashed on TV and radio.
I agree that the press in the UK and elsewhere are viciously anti-Catholic, but it’s very rare to see a priest interviewed. Normally, it’s lay people and lay diocesan spokesmen who take the heat. That’s why I found it edifying to see a priest walk into the lion’s den like that.
It is horrible, this interview! at the first question, I would have told this chap: “get out immediately!” and kicked his backside.
One should not argue with such people…
Pretty sure that English is not his first language, that being French, but his English is perfect of course and wonder how any of us would fare or be able to endure such a line of questioning?…..In the end did Menzingen have NO editorial control of the video..could they not have pulled this at the end…How could anyone have let this car crash of an interview just roll on and not stopped it mid way ? Does SSPX not have a copyright or something on this? Was this a FREE interview and did Sebastian and co. make money out of this venture (probably did)?…..However this interview will do incalculable damage to the Society and basically make them a laughing stock amongst their mortal enemies.That was obviously the aim.
Lupine
I disagree. I don’t think it will harm the SSPX in the least. People are not as stupid as Tim Sebastian and Co think they are. It will be seen for the stitch up it was, I am quite confident about that.
Lionel
That was precisely Bishop Fellay’s triumph, he didn’t argue or get angry in compliance with the projected plan. If I had been on the receiving end of Sebastian’s barrage, I would have stopped him in his tracks by asking if this was an interrogation or an interview. When he answered “interview,” I would have said: good, so let’s conduct it with respect and objectivity. Permit me time to answer the questions instead of interrupting and shouting me down. Otherwise, we’re done here.
Athanasius,
It certainly would have been a much better solution…
It seemed that Bishop Fellay was in court!
I feel outraged to such methods.
Finally, I found that Bishop Fellay was too soft in his arguments with this “very nasty Prosecutor”.
I am not sure that he realized whom he was dealing with!
Lionel,
“kicked his backside.”
LOL ! I agree !
I thought the title of the programme would have tipped off the viewers that the “evil man” was playing a role. Taking a controversial figure and making conflict with him and his views. As others have noted the good guy won.
I have never been privileged to hear the Arch Fellay speak before he came out with flying colors. Kept his patience, probably released a good number of souls from Purgatory but he did manage to make some very good distinctions.
The respect that is owed is to the person as he is in office – as Our Lord did say, “they sit in the chair of Moses … but do not the things that they do.”
After reading the intro here I had to laugh that it has been said (I won’t say by whom) : “I find it difficult to comprehend why anyone – especially a Catholic – would find boxing an attractive sport.”
Alex F
Interviewers who ask a barrage of questions without affording time for answers are belligerent in my book. You may rest assured that the Dalai Lama wouldn’t have received similar treatment. It was a disgraceful performance from Tim Sebastian, very clearly disrespectful and aggressive.
A destruction job on the SSPX carried out with ruthless aplomb.
Interruption is a standard interview technique. It stops the interviewee from rambling or evading the question.
Tim Sebastian is a well-known journalist with a good reputation. And if you think he was being tough you should watch cabinet ministers being interviewed on Newsnight or Question Time. Jeremy Paxman, Jon Snow or Andrew Neil would have eaten Bp Fellay for breakfast. And the interview was conducted in Bp Fellay’s house in Switzerland, so he had home advantage.
Don’t get me wrong; I think it was very brave of Bp Fellay to agree to the interview in the first place. It’s very refreshing to see a Catholic bishop going head to head with a real journalist who isn’t going to let him off the hook and who isn’t afraid to ask awkward questions. Unfortunately, bishop Fellay didn’t handle it very well, but I have to give him credit for taking on the task.
Alex F
Interruption is bad manners, full stop. A few decades ago that kind of behaviour would not have been tolerated from a so-called journalist. As for Tim Sebastian being a respected journalist. The man worked for years for the anit-Catholic BBC. I think that should tell us all something about his credentials.
I quite often watch these interviews with Paxman and others badgering their guests and it drives me crazy. How are we supposed to get answers if they won’t give time to the respondent to put his case. They’re thugs, not professional journalists, and it all started with Robin Day. He was the first to introduce this new method of interviewing and it caught on, as every low life habit appears to have caught on in our modern society. Whatever happened to human decency and respect, that’s what I’d like to know.
Athanasius,
I think it is important for TV journalists to make politicians answer questions, and some of them are not too bad at doing that, but they do it by repeating the question, not by insulting them. Also, most of them let the politicians away with not answering the question.
I’ve never seen anything like the badgering of Bishop Fellay. That was downright rudeness. I’m incredulous that the Bishop didn’t get up and walk out early on. I know I would have.
Alex F,
I watch Newsnight and most of the popular political programmes. I have NEVER seen a politician treated as Bishop Fellay was treated – not even by Jeremy Paxman who was, admittedly, the best of the bunch. No way are politicians treated as brutally as Bishop Fellay was treated by that nasty, nasty, nasty man – as for being a well known journalist with a good reputation. Eh? I’d never heard of him and his reputation is zilch now that I’ve seen his heartless work.
Interrupting at the pace he was interrupting, is NOT “standard interview technique”. Bishop Fellay had not the slightest chance to ramble or evade questions. He was badgered, barracked, insulted – anyone watching that interview who doesn’t see that, needs to visit Specsavers. Like, yesterday!
Bravo!
I also thought the questions asked by the interviewer were appalling actually. At one point he asked, “What does God care more about, the suffering of Christians or the Latin Mass?” This is an idiotic question, designed only to try to make Bishop Fellay sound cold and uncaring. His Excellency did well on that one and didn’t give Sebastian any meat.
I also thought the questions were leading and overly emotive. This was no standard interview. It was an attempted hatchet job. I did think Bishop Fellay could have been stronger at times, but to remain calm and charitable was some feat. I get the impression Sebastian wanted to trip him up or make him lose the rag. In that sense, the bishop didn’t give him an inch.
‘… that nasty, nasty, nasty man – ‘
Oh, get over yourself, dear. Gerragrip!
[Bishop Fellay] was just completely out of his depth with someone like Tim.
Consty, er… Constantine, Honey-Bunch… 😀
I can’t imagine WHO called Mr Sebastian “that nasty, nasty, nasty man” but he/she is spot on, so avoid being rude about our bloggers, please and thank you.
And unless you want to end up looking for another blog, be careful to refer to Bishop Fellay with the utmost respect. I’ve removed your disrespectful reference to his Christian name, and if anything like it happens again, you’ll be sent packing. Be warned. Two strikes and you’re out.
“Tim” (if you really must be on first name terms with that man) manifestly lacks the elementary skills required of someone trying to elicit answers from an obviously gentle person, un-used to the brusque (to put it mildly) manner of those engaged in what is nothing more than journalese. It’s not true journalism. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
“Completely out of his depth” describes, perfectly, Tim Sebastian who wouldn’t recognise the Truth of Catholicism, the crisis in the Church and the SSPX’s pivotal role in the restoration of the Faith, if it came up and smacked him on the mouth.
Whoever, described him as “that nasty, nasty, nasty man” kinda hit a nail squarely on the head, as I’m sure, on reflection, you will agree, Consty 😉
His ordination is not recognised. The successor of Peter himself, Benedict XVI, said so… and so did Michael Voris.
Constantine
Now you’re getting ridiculous. Please try to keep the debate on an adult level. That claim is so off-the-wall that I’m not going to waste time correcting it.
Oh well, if Michael Voris said it…. Gerragrip.
Constantine
“[Bishop Fellay] was just completely out of his depth with someone like Tim.”
In terms of disrespect, aggression and word twisting, you’re right, Bishop Fellay was not in the same league as your Tim. I’ll give you that.
Then why did Bishop Fellay’s advisors allow their Bishop to walk in to this trap? This is beyond belief..if their “research” was up to the barest minimum they would see how this would turn out?….If the Bishop took advice from his own people then they are NOT fit for purpose and in the Business World their jackets would now be on a shoogly peg !
Misha
Yes, I agree with you on that score. I can’t understand why Bishop Fellay gave that interview and why his advisors did not carry out, apparently, even the most basic research beforehand. I don’t have an insight into what goes on in Menzingen. Maybe there was some reason for going ahead with this, or maybe Bishop Fellay and his advisors thought the interview would be carried out with some measure of dignity.
Basic research, however, had it been done, would have thrown up some red flags, not least that Combat Zone is of German foundation and Tim Sebastian is British. That’s a bad combination if your looking for fair play towards the Catholic Church, especially the Traditional Church.
Just because the Editor of Catholic Truth has never heard of someone doesn’t mean they are not well-known. I have heard of Tim Sebastian and seen him interview many interesting people, so I knew exactly who he was before I watched the Bp Fellay interview.
The interview style was adversarial. It’s an accepted style of interview. Perhaps people don’t think it should be, but it is. Sure, there are many things about this world that i would change, but I cannot, so we just have to accept it or stew in bitterness. It’s your choice. However, I suspect the outrage expressed here would be slightly less hysterical if it were anyone but the leader of your order in the hot seat.
It is possible to respect someone while engaging in robust debate. The interview was never going to be anything but adversarial. Sure, the name of the programme should be a giveaway. I expect bishop Fellay did some background research, even if he didn’t know who Tim Sebastian was prior to agreeing to the interview, and knew what he was getting into and thought he could handle it. If he didn’t, then it means he deserved the roasting he got for not doing his homework. The only question I thought might have been inappropriate was the one at the end where he asks bishop Fellay what his sins are. A Catholic would know not to answer a question like that, but it should have been easy to deflect without violence. He could have gently said that we don’t normally talk about personal sins outside of the Confessional and opened the door to a discussion on the Sacrament of Penance. Unfortunately, bishop Fellay went on to answer the question- at least in part, missing out anything too embarrassing.
The simple fact is that bishop Fellay had a bad day. He’s not the first public figure to get beasted by a journalist and he won’t be the last and as I’ve said already, that he gave the interview at all is to his credit. He can either learn how to handle it better next time, or he could sit on a pity-pot and blame everyone else- the interviewer, the producer, the lad with the furry microphone, the Freemasons, Modernists or members of the Jewish religion.
Alex F
That’s your view, and you’re entitled to it. The rest of us have a different take on events and the temerity to lament the loss of human decency and respect in this generation.
What you call “adversarial” we call ignorant and ill-mannered. No one who wishes the betterment of society should resign themselves to this kind of degrading performance posing as journalism. The alternative is not to “stew in bitterness,” as you suggest, but rather to express justified indignation. If enough people do their duty on this front, then maybe journalistic methods will again return to something of their past dignity.
And by the way, Bishop Fellay was not giving his sins away, he was sending a message to Tim Sebastian.
One other point. No one blames the Jewish religion for this, so why slip that in at the end?
Alex,
I didn’t claim that because I hadn’t heard of Sebastian, nobody else had – obviously not. I see he’s listed as having worked for the BBC – big deal: so was Jimmy Saville. And he apparently worked on HARDtalk – something I’ve watched often but never seen him. Stephen Sackur is the host now and conducts pleasant and interesting interviews without being nasty. So, forgive me for never having heard of or seen Mr Sebastian. I’ve really not missed anything and I will be avoiding his broadcasts like the plague from now on. For the record, he’s not taken up my challenge to invite me for interview. I’m so well rehearsed, too, you wouldn’t believe it. One line answers quickly followed by “NEXT!” Well, a gal can dream, can’t she?
The following, from you, suggests, with respect, that you’ve rather missed the point of this thread, the reason for my outrage and the annoyance through to outrage of others here:
“I suspect the outrage expressed here would be slightly less hysterical if it were anyone but the leader of your order in the hot seat.
Ignoring your silly use of “hysterical” (a well-worn if childish way of putting down anyone with a different view) one key reason for our annoyance – mine certainly – is precisely that nobody else, apart from the Superior of the SSPX, WOULD be (has been) subject to such ignorance and rudeness. THAT, is the whole point. Can you imagine Sebastian treating Cardinal Nichols like that? Strictly rhetorical – we all know the answer.
I’m sure you don’t mean to, but your closing words ring of arrogance, with bells on: “He can either…”
I haven’t heard the Bishop blaming anyone – have you? Again strictly rhetorical. I’ve just said, with apologies for any hurt feelings, that you came across as arrogant with those final words, Sebastian definitely came across as arrogant throughout the interview, but nobody could accuse Bishop Fellay of coming across as anything but polite and humble.
Game set and match to the Bishop, methinks.
Athanasius,
“the Dalai Lama wouldn’t have received similar treatment”
Absolutely! The DL would have told him to “F*** off” as he told his audience of around 9,000 people in Glasgow a few years ago, saying if they didn’t like his teachings just to say “F*** it” !
No way would that interviewer have bullied the DL as he bullied poor Bishop Fellay. I was SO impressed with the Bishop – he is obviously a very holy man.
Michaela,
I well remember that occasion when the Dalai Lama told his audience to just say “F*** it” if they found his teachings too hard. It was hilarious reading it in the papers at the time, and folk saying he was a god.
I think you are right about Bishop Fellay – if ever a man was saintly, it’s him, and I think people who don’t even go to SSPX Masses think that.
http://www.dw.com/en/may-i-finish-my-sentence-tim-sebastian-in-the-hot-seat/av-18919804
So it should have been foreseen. I’m in agreement with the car-crash comments. Athanasius, I think that people, brainwashed by PC, ARE just as stupid as this pit-bull terrier and his puppet masters think, and this interview will delight all the usual suspects.
Christina,
I don’t think he was really given a taste of his own medicine in that video. I think the interviewer was quite deferential to him. It is interesting, though, to see how he backed down in the clip they showed of the Afghan politician ticking him off and asking not to be interrupted till he finished his sentence. Sebastian was like every other bully when they are confronted – backed down.
Christiana
I wasn’t thinking of the usual suspects when I made my comment, I was thinking of those who objectively weigh everything for themselves. Sadly, that other lot, the lemmings, we will always have with us. This is not a thinking man’s world today, it is a robotic one. Hence Bishop Fellay could have left Tim Sebastian crying on the floor and they would still attack the SSPX, because they like the easy life. Again, I am reminded in their regard of the words of G K Chesterton that only dead fish flow with the current.
I thought Bishop Fellay acquitted himself magnificently during that interview. I had never heard of (or seen) the TV show before, but it is clear the presenter’s style is a blunt and aggressive manner of interview.
The good Bishop clearly “won” the encounter (he sat giggling in the man’s face at the end) and was calm, mild mannered and well measured throughout. The presenter failed to fluster or provoke him, as was clearly the intent. Bishop Fellay repeatedly took the time to make important distinctions and correct erroneous portrayals of certain facts.
Questions were typically framed in the one-sided fashion designed to influence viewers who have no real knowledge of the topic and the presenters tone was unkind and antagonistic. And so the Bishop’s strategy for the interview was very wise. I thought he came out of it looking good and he did well to defend the Society and avoid traps, while not undermining any of the Society’s stances nor making any concession.
It was hilarious at the end when the presenter tried to use prolonged silence as a weapon – but it was one the Bishop was comfortable with. The presenter ended up looking silly, having to sit through a prolonged close up of his own face while +Fellay sat and smiled at him. And the Bishop cleverly using the crass question – about his own sins – to passively mock the presenter was fantastic. The man knew he was being mocked, and +Fellay knew that he knew.
Rather than anger, I feel proud of Bishop Fellay and how he handled the interview. He is an astute man and would have known the kind of thing he would be facing up front (whoever would walk into a recorded interview while knowing nothing of the TV show or presenter? Pope Francis likely, but other than him I mean!). The show is called “conflict zone” after all.
That the Bishop chose to face such a style of interview speaks volumes for his courage and through it he has shown the enemies of tradition that they cannot impinge upon him or the Society he leads. That his interrogator was using his native tongue, while +Fellay spoke in a foreign language, only made his calm performance all the more impressive.
(And it was interesting to note how the presenters tone changed completely, just after the interview ended).
I visited the Conflict Zone website and then Googled to see if I could find an interview with a Westminster politicians but it seems Tim Sebastian specialises in interviewing foreign politicians. I can’t find any video of him interviewing an MP from the UK.
I agree that Bishop Fellay was insulted in that interview and not given a fair crack of the whip at all, but I think – to be honest – that he should have been more wary, knowing what happened to Bishop Williamson. No journalist is interested in the truth about the Catholic faith. That needs to be the starting point of anyone who is asked for an interview, especially an SSPX priest or bishop. They’re looking to trash the faith, to trash the SSPX. In Bishop Fellay’s place, I’d steer well clear of journalists, at least until situation with Rome is straightened out.
Would have liked to see Sebastian tackle George Galloway in a debate on the Middle East…I checked out Sebastian’s other interviews on YouTube and he ripped in much worse to an Israeli Member of Knesset and it was the same methodology.Hostile interviewer…same as Athanasius describes with Paxman and Michael Howard stuff and Howard is a QC! My impression was that Bishop Fellay was on the rack….this interview was futile and damaging to the SSPX in my honest opinion of a person who has not quite made up their mind with regard to the Society.
Misha,
Sebastian seems to only interview foreign politicians and he can be quite hard on them. I watched the interview with the Lebanese foreign minister but although he was quite pushy with him, he didn’t barrack the way he did with the Bishop.
That’s a good point about George Galloway – he’d have given as good as he got and if he had been asked inappropriate questions (and there’s no end of scope!) Sebastian would have been the worse for wear, no question about it.
Paxman never made personal remarks in his interview. He kept on at the subject of the interview trying to get answers to the questions about politics, but this interview with Bishop Fellay was in a different league – it was personal and completely out of line. When was any politician asked to list his sins, or even personal faults? All the way through the scandal of MPs expenses, none of them were called thieves, for example.
I don’t think the interview was damaging to the SSPX, unless you mean its leader came across as rather weak at times. That comes from the belief that he had to be charitable and by “charitable” he may have thought that meant not giving as good as he got, not speaking harshly which is what he should have done IMHO. Our Lord didn’t hesitate to call out the scribes and Pharisees (whited sepulchres etc) so it is a pity that the Bishop didn’t do so as well, but I don’t think it’s fair to condemn the SSPX because of what is, worst scenario, a personal weakness. I think most people will recognise the Bishop’s humility in the face of a most ignorant and uncharitable onslaught.
Misha,
Michaela is correct in saying that Paxman and his ilk focused on the political issues in interview, they did not make personal remarks. I have just read the transcript of the famous Paxman/Michael Howard interview, and here’s the only exchange that could remotely be described as “personal” during that part of the interview dealing with the Conservatives’ policy on immigration:
PAXMAN: And you have made great play of the fact that you yourself come from refugee stock.
HOWARD: I come from immigrant stock actually, not refugee stock, if you want to be strictly accurate. I do come from immigrant stock.
PAXMAN: I thought I heard you say you came from refugee stock.
HOWARD: No you’ve, you’ve, no, that’s not true. My father came to this country to do a job. He was an economic migrant if you like. He was not a, he was not a refugee.
Read the entire transcript here
Yes, Paxman keeps up the pressure to get the politicians to answer but that would not have been necessary with Bishop Fellay, had he been asked fair questions, courteously. Paxman was perfectly courteous in interviews, notwithstanding his dogged determination to get the politicians to provide the answers. I remember one interview with a female Labour politician whose name escapes me at the moment and he asked the same question around 12 times, and 12 times she failed to answer. Still, he made no personal or nasty remarks to or about her. And she had taken money to which she was not entitled, flashing a cheque for thousands of pounds in front of the TV cameras when she was caught, announcing that she was returning the stolen goods. Still, no personal remarks. These politicians are always treated with kid gloves, with a respect which I, personally, find incredible, notwithstanding that, occasionally (very occasionally now that Paxman has gone) they meet with some pressure in interviews.
I repeat, I’ve never EVER seen a politician or other personality, subjected to the barracking and bullying which Tim Sebastian dished out to Bishop Fellay.
Misha
I made up my mind in favor of the SSPX 27 years ago and I didn’t need to think long and hard about it. The goings on in my local parish church were quite enough for me to favour an immediate return to Tradition. Sideshow interviews with hostile enemies of Tradition didn’t come into the equation, and still don’t.
I am pleased to say that, thanks be to God, I have not wavered in my decision over many years of assaults on the SSPX, more often and wickedly from within the Vatican and local dioceses. My choice was made on supernatural grounds, not superficial ones like the Sebastian interview. I hope you are made of better stuff than to be deterred by people like him.
While admitting I have not heard of the interviewer or the program, but any basic research by Bishop Fellay and/or his advisers should have told him what kind of program it was and what to expect from the interviewer.
So for people to complain about the interviewer for interrupting and asking biased questions that is what he is PAID to do. Bishop Fellay did not have to agree to be interviewed , it is a mystery to me why he did so.
A mystery indeed. I suspect he (the Archbishop) was expecting an intellectual argument – but “so sorry this abuse” is what he got. Had he been given the chance to explain his distinctions of being respectful of the “Church” while having “problems” with the post VII agenda it would have been a great help to those of us to try to find an even keel.
A mystery to me too. Ill advised by his advisors and lieutenants. Any one who looked at this car crash interview would get the impression that the Society had been exposed as an ultra orthodox anti semitic organisation and the rest. But that was the interviewer’s remit anyway and is now all over the world. I watched it a third time and was just as appalled. He should have stopped the interview in the first minute and did a John Nott and disconnect his mic and walk out.I winced watching the ending in particular. My final point is can Bishop Fellay really handle the St Galen Mafia inspired heavy duty mob in Roman?
Bishop Fellay has handled the people in Rome very well so far, so I have every confidence in him.
If he’d got up and walked out, then that would have made headlines around the world. As it is, only the Conflict Zone fan club will know anything about it and since most of us probably hadn’t heard of it before, it won’t do much damage. I, for one, had never heard of this journalist or the Conflict Zone, and I think of myself as reasonably well informed.
Unfortunately Tim Sebastian is very well known from BBC days and has sufficient gravitas to be taken seriously !
Gravitas? Rubbish.
I must be honest and say that I couldn’t watch the whole of this car crash; I’ve been suffering with pain in my jaw and have been advised by my dentist not to clench my teeth, so that’s my excuse for stopping the video half way. From what I did watch, my feeling is that Bishop Fellay is far too saintly and humane a man to have been subjected to this vile, bigoted, and self-serving “reporter”, who clearly had absolutely no intention of listening to what he didn’t want -and couldn’t bear to hear — and thereby getting to the truth of matters, but who merely wanted to defame what he doesn’t understand and yet hates with a passion. Tim Sebastian is not interested in truth, facts, or integrity. He is only interested in sound bites.
Having said this, I am very disappointed that Bishop Fellay’s advisers did not do their homework and advise him that to attempt to communicate on any intelligent or useful level with such a blind, self-serving bigot would be useless.
Unfortunately Sebastien does have gravitas with the MSM and has made a very good living out of it and has fluency in German and Russian and is the equivalent of a MSM Hit Man. Messr Pfluger and Neily should have done their homework (10 minutes on the ‘net would have sufficed) and avoided the need for their boss to be put in this position…as I said “their jackets should be on a shoogly peg”……in the real business world their feet would not have touched the deck…sorry to sound brutal but this whole video was simply irresponsible and unnecessary ! Cost/Benefit analysis on the back of an envelope would have stopped this dead in the water.
Oh, he has gravitas with the main stream media. Wow. What an accolade.
Why should he not have given the interview? I want to see more of this. What has become of the modern clergy? Where are the old battle axes I remember from my youth, who weren’t frightened of a bit of rough and tumble and didn’t shy away from basic questions from normal humans? Where are the men like Fulton Sheen who wasn’t frightened to go head to head with Communists? When did all the priests become delicate hypersensitive pansies, hiding in ivory towers surrounding themselves with homosexuals and menopausal spinsters?
This might not have been Bishop Fellay’s finest hour, but, sure he had bottle enough to go for it with one of the world’s own, and that has to count for something. I might not agree with everything he says, but it’s hard not to respect him for that.
Alex F
I would like to see anyone have a “finest hour” with that kind of man interviewing them. His questions were loaded, his presentation of events skewed, his ears closed and his mouth constanly on the move. St. Peter himself would have been made to look a criminal under such circumstances.
Nor would any of those old battle axes you mention have fared any better. In fact, they would just have been portrayed as aggressively evading awkward questions. These modern journalists have the deck stacked whatever way you look at it. There’s no honesty in that profession any more. It’s about sensationalism, the only commodity that sells these days, not truth and goodness.
Lupine22
“…as I said “their jackets should be on a shoogly peg”…”
Are you posting on this thread under two different names? It was Misha who spoke of shoogly pegs earlier. That means you and Misha are one and the same contributor? This is confusing to others, not to mention disconcerting. Why alternate between two different names to post comments that are more or less similar in the points they make?
Just liked the phrase, not heard it in a long time, old Scottish I believe 😄
I’d have to cast my vote with those who are wondering why in the world this “interview” was arranged in the first place. By whom? To what end? I hope it was just the result of either incredible naivete or sheer incompetence – either way, someone’s rear end needs to be on the hot seat, with scorch marks left permanently on the fabric.
As for this Tim Schneider, by no stretch of the imagination does he qualify as a “reporter.” He is merely a two-dimensional attack dog and shallow ideologue in the service of those who hate Our Lord and His Church. For Bishop Fellay to have subjected himself to this – despite having emerged intact – is to have done the Society a clear disservice. We can’t be casting our pearls before swine.
Agree RCA Victor, but what does occur to me is a whole team in Menzingen who could blithely be led down the garden path to this degree and yet still think they can negotiate with Rome and come out winning.
Lupine
I don’t think it wise or helpful for us to speculate in this way. Besides, there are friends as well as enemies in Rome and the friendship circle has grown considerably since Pope Francis took the reigns. Perhaps a little more trust in Our Lord and His Providence is what we all need.
Amen to that!
Regarding the video. Far from being angry at this, Bishop Fellay has gone up even higher in my estimation than he was, and he was already at the top. That interview was arrogance versus humility.
I`ll bet he was shrewd enough not to give Desmond Tutu such a hard time. Political correctness and all that.
There`s only one way of dealing with reptiles (apologies to any reptiles looking in) such as this, and I haven`t even looked at the video yet, play them at their own game. Especially those with any links with the BBC.
I would probably be the worst person in the world to interview anyone but I`d love to have a go at this “man”.
Since it is now well known that virtually everyone, repeat EVERYONE, who was anything at all with the BBC over the past fifty years knew of the (alleged) shennanigans of Jimmy `Scapegoat` Saville, I would start off by asking him why he and his cronies sat back and allowed all the abuse to happen while he was in their employ. Not only allow it but at times to take part in it, although I would emphasise that I wasn`t accusing him of any wrongdoing.
These are the people who accused Pope Benedict of failing to act on abuse carried out in private in remote parts of the world but expect us to believe that the heads of the BBC in London didn`t know what was happening by paid employees along their office corridors and sometimes even in the same room.
If you read Terry Wogan`s personal chaplain, Fr (?) D`Arcy, you will see where he boasts about giving Bishop Cahal Daly a roasting on the Gay (well named) Byrne show over in H**** about his
hiding of the child abuse in Ireland. It has now transpired that his famous atheist friend knew about Jimmy Saville also but told Jean Rook when she complained about Saville that it was her problem not his. No wonder the Father said Wogan was a good man because he went home at night to his family. You have to wonder where the rest went to. Along with Saville maybe?
Then there was the excuse that everyone was afraid to report Saville because he was a VIP, all powerful, or whatever. The only reason anyone was afraid of a decrepit old man was because they were afraid of what he knew about the lot of them. I just wonder what they put into the last cup of tea he had when he last visited dear old Auntie Beeb.
If Sebastian would like to take me on I will be available at very, very short notice. He might find that it was the chair Bishop Fellay was sitting on that was making him uncomfortable.
“If Sebastian would like to take me on I will be available at very, very short notice.”
LOL! I’d love to see that! Sebastian would be the uncomfortable one!
Not everyone has the steel, or the “stairheid” element in their character to come off well in an interview such as this one. Bullies usually choose their “victims ” well.
I notice on the few occasions when Bishop Fellay did make a valid explanation, the interviewer dived into a new area double quick, where more blame could be attached ( he hoped!)
I felt the fact that English is not the Bishop’s first language, placed him at a disadvantage. It resulted in hesitancy, associated very often with guilt, but in this situation, it was in fact the searching by the Bishop, for words to convey honestly and accurately his position.
This hesitancy might not militate for him in the eyes of many viewers; and it would probably be sussed by the interviewer as weakness, hence his relentless pursual.
Anyway, it poses for me the conundrum; if we are to be IN the world but not OF it, now can we deal with the likes of this interviewer?
The more “holy ” you are, are you less likely to be able to handle a guy like this?
Bishop Fellay was dignified at least. But he wasn’t a match for this man.
Spero,
There were plenty of saints who were outspoken and even bad tempered although obviously they conquered the bad temper. I don’t think being holy means being subservient as there are different types of saints, and some are meant to do one work and some do another. Giving as good as you get in one of these interviews where the faith is under attack, would not be a sign of lack of holiness IMHO. St Paul was outspoken in his letters, so I can’t imagine him sitting back and taking that abuse from Tim Sebastian.
I still believe that this interview was totally unnecessary and seriously counter-productive and a simple Cost/Benefit analysis on the back of an envelope would have seen to that…cui bono?
Lupine,
Have you ever been invited to participate in a radio or TV interview or broadcast, discussion? I have.
They never say “we want you so that we can trash you and make you look like an idiot” – no. “One” is always really necessary to allow this side of the argument or that side of the argument to be heard. “One” needs a voice. They’re delighted to give “one” this platform. Programme won’t be the same without your input, blah blah.
Happily, I’ve been familiar with the shows in which I’ve been invited to participate so smiled at the blarney and was able to be reasonably well prepared – my problem was usually getting a word in, after the initial “token Catholic” sentence or two.
As for the “benefit” – well, it’s always a gamble participating in these programmes, and, as we can see from this thread alone, plus the comments on YouTube, the majority opinion (including those who are not attending SSPX Masses) seems to be positive in the Bishop’s regard, viewers being able to contrast his humility and goodness with the evil perpetrated through the nasty interview techniques.
Point of clarification – I notice someone referred to the interviewer as “evil” but that is not what I am saying. We are not permitted to make that judgment and thankfully William Hill is not taking bets, so I’m not even tempted to try. The interview was “evil” in that it fell very far short of what we have a right to expect of an interview, that the subject is given a chance to answer questions posed and no such intrusive questions as “what are your sins?” are permitted. That’s quite different from judging the disposition of the person’s soul.
I don’t think Bishop Fellay did a bad job to be honest. I agree that Tim Sebastian was antagonistic and generally speaking repellent, and that Bishop Fellay was not as outspoken as he could have been. As for the Jews, they are the enemies of the Church as they constantly try to influence and interfere over the Church. Just look at the reaction to Pope Benedict’s election, Summorum Pontificum and the Good Friday Prayer, all of which were opposed by Jewish bigots such as the Anti-Defamation League and Abraham Foxman. At the Trial of Jesus, the Jews cried out in Matthew 25:27- ‘His blood be upon us and our children’. The Jews cursed themselves with for their crime and as long as the Jews of our days reject Christ then they are complicit in and share the crime of their ancestors. This crime can be removed if they are baptised, like Original Sin.
Regarding Paul Touvier, he was on the run from the police for a crime (the 1944 Rillieux-la-Pape massacre). The Society Priests who hid him will have known who he was. The Christian response would have been to tell him to go to the police. Although, Touvier had a similar upbringing to Archbishop Lefebvre- staunch Monarchist and devoutly Catholic parents who opposed the Republic.
As for Archbishop Lefebvre’s views on Muslims, I share them, and this is quote to Sebastian referred: “It is your wives, your daughters, your children. They will be kidnapped and taken to places like that famous place, like Casablanca, Meknes and all the places like this and you won’t be able to get them back because they will have built the Medina and the Mosque in such a way that even the gendarmes cannot go in. What will France be like then? It is already like this in some British towns”. Sebastian protested, but has he heard of 7/7, the Paris attacks, grooming of white girls in Rotherham and other places, honour killings and sharia patrols. Is Sebastian going to ask the Caliphate if their persecution of Christians is ‘hurtful’. Gerragrip.
Jewish ‘defects’. They are defective as they do not possess the Catholic faith. They are also not a race.
Papal authority- “we don’t question the authority. What we question is certain acts’. St. Paul rebuked St. Peter to his face in Antioch in Galatians 2:11, when St. Peter refused to consort with Gentiles out of fear of offending circumcised Jewish converts, lest St. Peter’s actions make the Gentiles think they need to conform to Jewish law. This is what Bishop Challoner notes- ‘Neither was St. Paul’s reprehending him any argument against his supremacy; for in such cases an inferior may, and sometimes ought, with respect, to admonish his superior’. We are not questioning the Holy Father’s authority, merely his heresy. The Pope himself is at the moment, charitably speaking, having a disastrous effect on the Church, because his views are so intrinsically attached to his person, i.e. he seems impervious to the light of tradition and his views seem so ‘personal’, if that makes sense. We respect his office.
Regarding homosexuality- Bishop Fellay never said anything extreme. He merely repeated the perennial Catholic Faith. He said we distinguish between tendencies and acts. These tendencies are consequences of Original Sin, ‘the terrible heritage’, and even after Baptism we still retain a darkened and impure will, concupiscence and the tendency to sin.
St. Pius X on women. He was a product of his time. Randall Davidson, the Archbishop of Canterbury was opposed to women’s suffrage. I look forward to the day when Sebastian interviews Justin Welby and excoriates him for his predecessors views.
I laughed my head off at the end when Sebastian asked +Fellay his sins. ‘Probably I talk too much, I give the impression of being too sure of myself’. The good Bishop pillocked his eyeballs out.
After researching this Paul Touvier character, I am somewhat uncomfortable with a kind of blaise approach to his name being connected in any tenuous way with the SSPX….given the allegations, sentencing etc.
PS- this is the traditional (1662) Anglican Good Friday Collect: ‘O merciful God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of any sinner, but rather that he be converted and live; Have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word; and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one fold under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen’.
That sounds more ‘anti-Semitic’ than our traditional prayer.
CC,
That’s interesting. It’s a wonder the Anglicans aren’t being hounded by all of those crazed critics of the traditional Catholic prayer. Of course, it’s not really the prayer to which they object – its the Catholic Church itself.
This Paul Touvier stuff disturbs me and further internet stuff turns up some guy called Erich Priebke….again linked to Society.
Misha,
While both men had a case to answer as regards their wartime crimes, (which, while very evil, are quite unremarkable by the standards of the War), it seems clear to me that their names are brought up chiefly to undermine the SSPX, more than anything else.
If they were indeed such notorious figures, why do we only ever first hear of such men in the media following some random encounter with the SSPX?
As I understand it, Paul Touvier presented himself at an SSPX priory saying he was destitute and had nowhere to go. The priests gave him food and shelter as an act of charity to a homeless man. I doubt the priests knew who he was but, even if they did, charity towards a sinner is still charity. Should they have turned him away? Is that what Our Lord would have done?
Priebke had, according to his lawyer, confessed and repented of his crimes in confession and done penance. As such, he was entitled to a Catholic funeral, yet the mainstream Church denied him this, seemingly because it would have generated negative headlines. The SSPX then said they would conduct a funeral for the deceased. Should they have sent the mans relatives away with his body? Is that what Our Lord would have done?
And, today, the Church almost never follows its own rules about who can legitimately access what sacrament – and so it seems unfair that one individual was held to a standard, when most or all are not.
Forgiveness, repentance and amendment are all at the heart of Christianity, but a vindictive / vengeful attitude should not be.
Gabriel Syme,
Very well said. You hit several nails on the head, perhaps notably the fact that the crimes of these “bad guys” only generate publicity when associated with the SSPX.
Clearly, while the mainstream dioceses are permitting funerals for partnerned homosexuals without giving it a second thought, not to mention others in various adulterous unions, the PC line must be toed when it comes to alleged war criminals – whether or not they have been to Confession and repented.
Shocking.
Editor,
Yes, it is very deflating to see the Church put public opinion / “approval ratings” above legitimate pastoral care – especially given it happened on Francis’ watch (who otherwise never stops talking about how pastoral work, not doctrine, should always be the first priority).
Gabriel,
It’s one of the unfortunate things about the SSPX that they have this reputation for being associated with far right groups. The truth is that this reputation is almost certainly undeserved, notwithstanding the bishop Williamson affair.
I had never heard of Paul Touvier until I saw this interview, but it is always possible that the SSPX didn’t know who he was when they gave him and his wife and children accommodation. I doubt very much they would have knowingly given refuge to someone on the run from the police, especially given that his original death sentence had been lifted, so there was no fear of Touvier being executed.
In the Priebke case, I remember reading about it at the time and was quite appalled that the Diocese of Rome refused him a Catholic burial. Here was a man who had attended Mass daily and had been frequently to Confession. For sure, he had committed a war crime but that was indeed in the context of a war when such atrocities were not unique on both sides. It was sixty odd years ago, and at the end of his life he appeared to be a very devout man and had served his sentence. That the Church refused to bury him was an appalling act of cowardice, given that the reason was only because of the false scandal that would have ensued in the media. Apparently, he continued to deny or downgrade the holocaust until his death, but that is not an article of Faith and is no reason to refuse a Catholic a proper send off. They care more about their reputation in front of worldlings than they do about the salvation of an old man’s soul. That the SSPX buried him was absolutely to their credit. Thank God someone did.
These cases are dredged up to discredit the SSPX, but in truth they represent a certain backbone that is missing elsewhere. I am not an SSPX person but credit where it’s due and I hate to see people have their names dragged through the mud unfairly. It’s so refreshing to see the leader of the SSPX at the very least make an attempt to tackle the problem head on. I wish more would.
Alex F,
When the Diocese refused Priebke a funeral, I did feel bad for the relatives trying to bury him. As it turns out I don’t think any of them actually got to attend the funeral service, due to protests / public disorder around it. A sad and ugly affair.
I had forgotten earlier that the father of Archbishop Lefebvre, (founder of the SSPX), himself died in a Nazi concentration camp He had been a British Agent during the first World War and, come the second, was identified as someone who might be troublesome for the ruling Germans and so was arrested.
And so we can see these claims of the Society sympathising with the politics of former Nazis are absurd.
The Williamson affair was damaging, no doubt, but the action taken to expel him (when it become clear he would not change his ways) was unequivocal.
Betcha the post conciliar Catholic church in USA would have priests elbowing each other out of the way to do a Requiem Mass for Biden or Pelosi in the same vein as Teddy Kennedy…..you know unrepentant pro-choice and the rest…and if Bonino was or is a Catholic, probably a top notch guy from the Vatican. However as appetite for browsing has caused my curiosity (which would have remained uninterested until the Sebastien car crash video).
Is Bishop Williamson biggest sin perhaps being TOO Catholic..when all over the world we have MASSIVELY dissenting priests who should incur excommunication anyway? In any case, as is said by many writers here Public “so called Catholic” figures who are Pro abort (some even advocate partial birth abortion, aka infanticide) and are FOR every other anti life measures by way of legislation and are living in new post divorce relationships are acceptable to the Modernists.If you are famous you get a VIP ticket to anything.We live in a Hollywood world.We have George Clooney, his wife and David Milliband going to sort out the Refugee crisis and so it goes on …..and in Liverpool we have a poodle that can tap dance….that is the kind of drivel that people sit on the edge of their seats to glean from the MSM torrent of Showbiz and sport (also politicians and Royalty).
” That the Church refused to bury him was an appalling act of cowardice,”
Sadly, I couldn’t agree with you more.
Gabriel
You wrote: “Apparently, he continued to deny or downgrade the holocaust until his death, but that is not an article of Faith and is no reason to refuse a Catholic a proper send off. ”
May I suggest for the millions who were killed during the holocaust, and their families, and indeed for other civilised people, the notion that their deaths were “not a matter of faith” it doesn’t seem to matter would be offensive to say the least, and is at least a glib reference of those deaths, and an wholly immoral act.
Further substitute the word abortion, for holocaust, and ask yourself whether you would say the same thing.
The man supported the Nazi regime and killed on its behalf, and to consciously disassociate yourself from one of its major crimes does present moral issues, and concerns. That he didn’t work in a Concentration Camp doesn’t excuse he served that regime in another capacity.
However, on a pastoral level I assume he like, any other person, should have been officially given at least a private Catholic funeral with family present.
Fr Arthur,
I think you have got me mixed up with someone else, it wasnt me who provided the quote you reference above!
Gabriel
I apologise for attributing it to you. It was addressed to you by Alex F I believe.
Fr Arthur,
To refresh your memory, when Glasgow priest, Fr Gerry Nugent died, he was given a public and typically “celebratory” funeral in the archdiocese, with priests in white vestments, and all of that despite the fact that he had given accommodation (and employment) to a man later found to be a serial killer and sex offender, who had murdered another lodger at the presbytery, a young Polish girl, a student.
Father Nugent had also been hiring prostitutes.
Yes and it was a kind of Edward Kennedy (Bishops falling over themselves to get on camera) kind of event, over the top celebration for highly esteemed catholics.(Highly esteemed by the pro abortion lobby )What does that say ? It seems to smack of the old adage…he may have been a xxxxxxxx , but he is OUR xxxxxx…it’s like a kick in the teeth to the shareholders of a corporation….I just can’t hack this Hollywood type ostentatious baloney.We live in a showbiz world..some of the Pope stuff is like a Metro Goldwyn Mayor production like the Ziegfield Follies…..In Mexico a 12 mile Wall of Light from mobile phones to light the way (and show solidarity) for the Papal Motorcade coming from the airport.
The whole story is on the net and all the details of the trial, shocking beyond words and the top brass knew all along.
The church was not exorcised after such an event..The Archdiocese has not had an Exorcist since 1974..which makes me think “do they not belive in Old Nick, Hell OR WHATEVER “!
I am not sure you can equate the two men. One worked, knowingly for The Nazi Party and massacred people, and Fr Nugent, presumably, provided work and accommodation for people he thought were vulnerable, and only later, as you say, one of them was a victim to a man ”
Fr Arthur,
To refresh your memory, when Glasgow priest, Fr Gerry Nugent died, he was given a public and typically “celebratory” funeral in the archdiocese, with priests in white vestments, and all of that despite the fact that he had given accommodation (and employment) to a man later found to be a serial killer and sex offender”.
I assume you also noted I said the person mentioned in the post to which you responded should have been given an official “private” funeral by the Church.
Fr Arthur,
The question isn’t the historical accuracy of the holocaust or not, the question is whether disputing the accepted account places one outside of the Church. To my knowledge, Priebke didn’t argue that 6 million Jews were not enough or that it was alright to murder that many people. Pro abortion people do not deny that abortion takes place, but argue that it is alright to murder a child in the womb, so that is a false analogy.
If the holocaust were any other event in history it would not be a crime to deny it. If someone were to deny the Potato Famine or the Sack of Constantinople, I expect they would still be given a Catholic funeral. To deny those events would not place one outside of the Church. It would not make you a non-Catholic- it would make you a moron, but still a Catholic. It would not indicate that you condone mass murder.
I can see that giving Priebke a Catholic funeral would reflect badly on the Church. However, there is a massive inconsistency here. Public funerals are given to all kinds of people who are living in sin and causing public scandal, so long as these people are popular with the world. From pro abortion politicians to gay celebrities, all get buried from the Church so long as they were popular in life. A couple of years ago a priest in the US was actually suspended for refusing Communion to on openly lesbian Buddhist at her mother’s funeral. Come on!
Priebke wasn’t popular so there were no pastoral reasons to give him what was his right as a Catholic. God will judge his soul, but Catholics ought to try to be charitable even to people we personally despise. His family didn’t even get to attend what was suposed to have been a public liturgy. What about their pastoral needs? If it were up to the Diocese of Rome, their father’s corpse would be rotting in a Roman sewer. How is that for pastoral?
I would say that the fact he was a war criminal was a problem. However, if holocaust denial doesn’t raise concerns for The Church why did The SSPX disown Williamson? It is illogical to say you can’t condemn a man for denying the holocaust but as this man did we disown him.
However, in my original response I said a private Catholic funeral was probably what Priebke should be afforded.
However, I might add that many of those accused of some of the worst crimes imaginable attended Mass, and prayed daily, until they were arrested. Outward actions do not always speak to what is in the heart.
“However, if holocaust denial doesn’t raise concerns for The Church why did The SSPX disown Williamson?”
I don’t know exactly why bishop Williamson was flung out the SSPX, but I don’t think it was just holocaust denial. I think it was interpersonal differences between him and bishop Fellay. However, other posters will be able to answer that better than me.
“However, I might add that many of those accused of some of the worst crimes imaginable attended Mass, and prayed daily, until they were arrested. Outward actions do not always speak to what is in the heart.”
But that could apply to anyone who attends Mass. We never know what is in the soul of another human being, so we leave that kind of judgement to God, and hope for the best for every individual. There were atrocities committed on the Allied side too, but, as history is written by the victor, none of them went to trial, so any Catholics involved will have received Catholic funerals without question. But even though we can escape justice in this life, God knows and sees everything.
I’m not saying that Priebke wasn’t a scoundrel- I never met him so I am not qualified to make that decision, and as I say, only God can judge. But a Catholic funeral should only be denied in the case of notorious public sinners or people who are known to have defected from the faith. So I doubt a Catholic funeral could have been denied to him on those terms.
The exit of Williamson from The SSPX was international news! May I remind you I have said twice, if not three times, the particular person you mention should have been given a private Catholic Funeral?
Yes, I am aware of that, but a Catholic funeral is a public liturgy. The Church doesn’t have private public worship. The Mass might have been held in camera, but it would still have been public. However, in Priebke’s case, even that was denied. It might have saved the family from a lot of distress, and they might have been able to attend without fear of being ripped to pieces by a hysterical mob.
The Church does do “private” ceremonies. For example, a validation of Marriage, a Sacrament, may be restricted/private. Likewise, a family may request a “family only” funeral.
Fair enough, but it is still the public prayer of the Church as an institution.
As I say, even that was denied to Priebke. I doubt very much it would have been enough to avoid the opprobrium of the Italian media. That was most likely the real reason for the refusal taken in the context of who else get Catholic funerals.
Every prayer ever uttered is the
Prayer of The Church, as when anyone prays they pray as a member of the Body of Christ, with Christ, to The Father.
I recall that when a much loved British celebrity died, and they wanted a Private Funeral, The Sun phoned various parishes in the Diocese, including one where I was resident, trying to get the details. In the version of the Priebke funeral, which I think I read on this thread, it was the media that caused problems for the family entering The Church.
Yes that is true, but the point i am making is that the church the funeral service was in was not a diocesan church, it was an SSPX church. The baying mob would have happened wherever the Mass took place, but it would appear that the diocese managed to deflect the heat away from them and onto the SSPX.
Bishop Williamson was not expelled for Holocaust denial. He was expelled for insubordination and public criticism of his superior.
The apology made by Bishop Fellay to Rome, relating to Williamson, centred on the embarrassment caused to Rome by his expressed views on the holocaust, and the fact he had been asked to stay silent on the issue. You cannot separate the two issues.
Actually you can. He wasn’t expelled for Holocaust denial. He was expelled for criticising his superior and insubordination. Denying the Holocaust doesn’t have a punishment in canon law does it?
I would say it would be a sin to deny the mass murder of millions, for whatever motive, most probably hatred of it victims, contrary to all the historical evidence. The evidence is there for all to see,
Petrus
You cannot separate the sequence of events, the various public statements, the furore in the media, and the outcome in relation to the Williamson affair. Why would Bishop Fellay need to apologise to Rome otherwise. He sure wasn’t apologising for him exercising internal discipline.
He felt the need to distance himself from the views of Williamson. To quote him:
“We are deeply pained to see how much damage the violation of this mandate has done to our mission. … We ask forgiveness of the Sovereign Pontiff and of all people of good will for the dramatic consequences of such an act.”
Bishop Fellay also describes how he is placing restrictions on Bishop Williamson by prohibiting him from “speaking in public on political or historic questions.” He also adds that “these remarks in no manner represent the views of our fraternity.”
If the reason for expelling Bp Williamson was about holocaust denial I would say that he was wrong to have done so. I know that they are currently looking to have the SSPX brought back into full communion with the Church, so it is unlikely the Church would ever agree to that if they had a famous holocaust denier in their ranks. It would look bad. Getting rid of him and publicly distancing themselves from his opinions was probably a prerequisite for whatever deal they want to come up with.
I remember shortly after this all came out, pope Benedict said in a book that he would not have lifted the excommunication on Williamson if he had known about his unconventional opinions on the holocaust. I do find this strange because the holocaust is not a defined article of the Catholic faith like the Creed or definitions of Ecumenical Councils. It was a brutal and bloody period in human history, but like other acts of genocide, questioning the facts does not constitute espousing heresy or defecting from the Catholic religion.
I suspect, sadly, that the reason the pope said this was because he didn’t want to cause outrage among the liberals.
I’m sorry but you are wrong. Bishop Williamson’s questioning of the numbers killed in the Holocaust was not sinful in any way. Which Commandment would he be breaking?
I do think think it was very foolish for him to make those comments in public. It’s not for a Catholic bishop to comment on these things.
However, he made his comments in 2009. He was subsequently banished and forbidden from speaking publicly about these matters. Bishop Fellay then apologised to Pope Benedict for the embarrassment caused. However he wasn’t expelled for another three or four years. He expulsion was far more to do with internal SSPX matters and the possibility of recognition with Rome than it was to do with the Holocaust.
I must say, I wonder if you took to Social media to condemn Canon Andrew Monaghan as “sinful” when he counselled a pregnant woman to visit an abortion clinic on live radio. Where was your outrage? I don’t remember one modern priest protesting about this. Let’s face it, abortion is a far more horrific crime than the Holocaust. So I think what has driven you to condemn the “sinful” actions of Bishop Williamson is political correctness, ecumenism and a hatred of Catholic Tradition.
Exactly why any Catholic would be an holocaust denier, or want to defend an holocaust denier I do not know. I would, however, their action would speak to motive, and their motive may be sinful. Hatred or degradation of a race would be sinful.
I’m certainly not denying the holocaust or defending anyone else who does, and I don’t think anyone else on this thread is either. I am simply stating that doing so does not place one outside of the Church. If it is through bitterness towards a specific race or group of people that is making them deny one of the darkest periods in history, then that is very sad for them, but again, they don’t put themselves outside of the Church because of it. It’s for God to judge what is in a person’s heart.
Throughout European history, Catholics have been on both sides of every major conflict with very few exceptions. Catholics have always held very different opinions from each other when those questions are not directly about faith and morality. I have heard Catholics say things that I completely disagree with; sometimes the most offensive bigoted things imaginable, but they are still Catholic. At least, it’s not my place to say they’re not.
Fr. Arthur
You are right of course, the Holocaust was a terrible event, a great evil.
However, I have to say that I am sick and tired of having rammed down my throat as if it were the only crime against humanity to have happened in modern times. It wasn’t.
There have been numerous crimes against humanity in recent history, abortion being by far the worst. And what about the conservatively estimated 30 million who perished under Stalin? What about the Rwandan genocide, etc? Isn’t it odd that all these are silenced while the Holocaust is perpetually put before the nations? Why is that, do you think?
Well said Petrus, forgot about Monagahan !
Imagine for a moment that Emma Bonino is a catholic and recently extolled by the Pope….betcha that would be a BIG Catholic funeral in Italy…….!….Now replace that name with Richard Williamson….wotcha think then…..doubt if even the SSPX would do HIS funeral….?
As I have regularly read this blog before contributing I know many regular commentators, and indeed The Editor, pounce on the use of “Is that what Our Lord would have done?”/”What would Jesus do” comments. This one seems to have slipped by unnoticed. I wonder why?
Fr Arthur,
Thats a fair question – I think its because when people reference what Jesus might have done in a situation, they are often (indeed, usually) suggesting he would have either ignored or overturned what He / His Church teaches. (advocating mercy distinct from justice, essentially).
This comes from the common modern notion that Christianity is an “anything goes” outlook, where it is judgemental to hold ideals.
When I was asking the question, it was because we know that Jesus would have been merciful to repentant sinners who sought mercy by accepting His justice, through confession and pennance for example.
Jesus wouldnt turn his back on people on grounds that He was worried what public opinion might say about His associating with them.
Gabriel
I would strongly disagree that mostly people who say WWJD? that
“its because when people reference what Jesus might have done in a situation, they are often (indeed, usually) suggesting he would have either ignored or overturned what He / His Church teaches. (advocating mercy distinct from justice, essentially). ” Clearly some do, but I doubt that it is the majority, and often it is because some legalistic, hard hearted, self righteous, person wants to load on burdens, and condemnation, Jesus himself lifted from the person, or people, being spoken of or condemned.
Probably because I was either enjoying my beauty sleep – I had an early night last night OR because in certain cases it is obvious what Jesus would have done.
For example, given that Jesus said “He that hears you hears Me” (not to mention the other Petrine texts) we can take it as a given that He would not have approved of the Protestant Reformation or of any of the dissenters today who question dogma.
Those who misuse the theology of what Our Lord would say or do, are those who reduce Christ’s “pastoral care” to an emotional “let’s be nice to everyone” mentality. After all, were it not written down for us in St John’s Gospel that Christ allowed the dissenters to go on their way and even asked his closest disciples if they, too, wished to leave, when His teaching on the Real Presence proved too much for some, were it not for the fact that we know of that reaction of Christ, we would have numpties all over the place telling us that Jesus would have “dialogued” with the dissenters, and if that failed to bring them to Faith, would have “tolerated” their unbelief, in a spirit of “inclusivity” and “diversity”. Gimme strength!
One last thing: it is always interesting to me that the same people who lecture us all about being charitable and (dare I say) “merciful” to dissenters and public sinners, conveniently shelve their “charity” when it comes to (mis)interpreting what I say or don’t say on this blog.
Gabriel Syme
Archbishop Lefebvre’s father was active in the French Resistance and with Birtish intelligence during WWII. He was arrested and tortured by the Gestapo before being transported to Sonnenburg concentration camp in Western Poland, where he perished.
Thank you Athanasius for this info.
Bishop Fellay did an excellent job in this interview. He explained the teaching of the Church calmly and concisely and did not sllow himself to be bullied although he did come across at times as being a little nervous. He is a great model for clergy of today.
To be honest Bishop Fellay should have known or been advised that he should have avoided this interview. Conflict zone is about creating conflict and they do not have any respect whatsoever for the person being interviewed. Would the editor expect a humanist newspaper to be respectful to her. Hopefully he will be more cautious in the future. It is no use quarrelling with Mr Sebastian – that is hw he makes his money, putting people down. And according to Mr Sebastain the Catholic church was now very humanist although if he had had an orthodox mainstream bishop to interview he would have been attacking all the things in the Church he had misrepresented. Notice the speed with which he moved from one subject to another in case Bishop Fellay stopped to think.
A cost benefit analysis on the back of a fag packet would have killed the very idea of such an interview and advisors or PR people should have known that had they been fit for purpose.
I have now received a reply to my email, from the Conflict Zone
Dear [Editor]
Thank you for your feedback and your interest in our show.
Tim Sebastian’s mission is to hold politicians and powerful leaders to account and he often adopts robust strategies to try and stop his guest from delivering all too familiar answers. We are aware that this is not to every viewer’s taste. We can, however, assure you that Tim is entirely unbiased to the extent that he pushes all of his guests very hard in order to hold them accountable and get answers. Confronting and interrupting them is part of Mr. Sebastian’s interview technique that he’s adopted throughout the last 40 years of his career, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t respect his interview partners, quite to the contrary.
You’re not the first viewer to feel a little thrown off by this style and so we have passed on your feedback to Mr. Sebastian himself. Here’s what he had to say:
http://www.dw.com/en/may-i-finish-my-sentence-tim-sebastian-in-the-hot-seat/av-18919804
We’re glad we could inspire a fruitful discussion on your blog and wish you all the best in the future.
Please let us know if you have any more questions.
All the best from the Conflict Zone team in Berlin
***************
My brief reply to their reply follows…
Thank you for your reply and the link. I’m afraid Tim wasn’t remotely put “in the hot seat” by his polite, smiling interviewer.
Still, the majority opinion on our blog seems to be that the Bishop came off looking much better than the interviewer, so all’s well that ends well.
Oh and thank Mr Sebastian for his comment but tell him I’d be much more interested in receiving a full list of his sins.
Thanks.
[Editor]
Editor
I believe it would have been of a lot more interest to find out why Bishop Fellay agreed to the interview. Can you imagine Pope Francis/ Cardinal Kaspar agreeing to a taped interview with Remnant/editor or Catholic Truth/ editor. 😀
Satan hates the ‘Society’ and is doing his best to destroy it, only last year England lost two priests who have not been replaced putting extra pressure on the remaining priests.
The next year will be critical for ‘The Society ‘ we should pray for them every day that God gives them the grace to stay together and make the right decisions.
John,
I’ve no idea why Bishop Fellay agreed to the interview – I sent the link to this thread but have not heard back.
Yes, we must keep praying for the Society in these critical days.
Snap, Editor. That’s the same circular e-mail that just dropped into my inbox. Mind you, at least it was edited, as I didn’t get the first and second lines after the link!
Christina,
That’s interesting. Looks like they at least checked out the blog discussion, then, if they consider it to be “fruitful”.
Comments are closed.