Evil: The Bullying of Bishop Fellay…

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.


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)

  • lupine22

    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?

    March 5, 2016 at 8:14 pm
    • editor


      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.

      March 5, 2016 at 9:39 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    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.

    March 5, 2016 at 9:29 pm
    • Misha

      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.

      March 5, 2016 at 11:16 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    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.

    March 5, 2016 at 9:32 pm
    • editor


      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.

      March 5, 2016 at 9:46 pm
  • Misha

    This Paul Touvier stuff disturbs me and further internet stuff turns up some guy called Erich Priebke….again linked to Society.

    March 6, 2016 at 5:15 pm
    • gabriel syme


      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.

      March 6, 2016 at 9:57 pm
      • editor

        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.


        March 6, 2016 at 10:07 pm
      • gabriel syme


        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).

        March 6, 2016 at 11:02 pm
      • Alex F


        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.

        March 6, 2016 at 10:47 pm
      • gabriel syme

        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.

        March 6, 2016 at 11:11 pm
      • Misha

        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).

        March 6, 2016 at 11:46 pm
      • lupine22

        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).

        March 7, 2016 at 4:31 pm
      • diamhuireduit

        ” That the Church refused to bury him was an appalling act of cowardice,”
        Sadly, I couldn’t agree with you more.

        March 7, 2016 at 1:54 am
      • Fr Arthur


        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.

        March 7, 2016 at 6:50 am
      • gabriel syme

        Fr Arthur,

        I think you have got me mixed up with someone else, it wasnt me who provided the quote you reference above!

        March 7, 2016 at 8:23 am
      • Fr Arthur


        I apologise for attributing it to you. It was addressed to you by Alex F I believe.

        March 7, 2016 at 8:39 am
      • editor

        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.

        March 7, 2016 at 9:35 am
      • Petrus

        Father Nugent had also been hiring prostitutes.

        March 7, 2016 at 11:01 am
      • Misha

        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.

        March 7, 2016 at 12:13 pm
      • lupine22

        The whole story is on the net and all the details of the trial, shocking beyond words and the top brass knew all along.

        March 7, 2016 at 12:15 pm
      • lupine22

        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 “!

        March 7, 2016 at 12:19 pm
      • Fr Arthur

        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.

        March 7, 2016 at 1:39 pm
      • Alex F

        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?

        March 7, 2016 at 3:33 pm
      • Fr Arthur

        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.

        March 7, 2016 at 3:46 pm
      • Alex F

        “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.

        March 7, 2016 at 5:25 pm
      • Fr Arthur

        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?

        March 7, 2016 at 5:34 pm
      • Alex F

        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.

        March 7, 2016 at 5:54 pm
      • Fr Arthur

        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.

        March 7, 2016 at 5:58 pm
      • Alex F

        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.

        March 7, 2016 at 6:18 pm
      • Fr Arthur

        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.

        March 7, 2016 at 6:54 pm
      • Alex F

        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.

        March 7, 2016 at 7:07 pm
      • Petrus

        Bishop Williamson was not expelled for Holocaust denial. He was expelled for insubordination and public criticism of his superior.

        March 7, 2016 at 5:44 pm
      • Fr Arthur

        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.

        March 7, 2016 at 5:53 pm
      • Petrus

        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?

        March 7, 2016 at 6:11 pm
      • Fr Arthur

        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,

        March 7, 2016 at 6:13 pm
      • Fr Arthur


        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.”

        March 7, 2016 at 6:19 pm
      • Alex F

        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.

        March 7, 2016 at 7:01 pm
      • Petrus

        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.

        March 7, 2016 at 7:01 pm
      • Fr Arthur

        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.

        March 7, 2016 at 7:05 pm
      • Alex F

        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.

        March 7, 2016 at 7:32 pm
      • Athanasius

        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?

        March 7, 2016 at 7:42 pm
      • lupine22

        Well said Petrus, forgot about Monagahan !

        March 7, 2016 at 8:11 pm
      • lupine22

        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….?

        March 7, 2016 at 4:16 pm
      • Fr Arthur

        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?

        March 7, 2016 at 6:53 am
      • gabriel syme

        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.

        March 7, 2016 at 8:34 am
      • Fr Arthur


        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.

        March 7, 2016 at 8:45 am
      • editor

        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.

        March 7, 2016 at 9:28 am
  • Athanasius

    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.

    March 6, 2016 at 11:34 pm
    • gabriel syme

      Thank you Athanasius for this info.

      March 7, 2016 at 8:34 am
  • Spiritus

    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.

    March 7, 2016 at 1:12 pm
  • John Kearney

    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.

    March 7, 2016 at 1:43 pm
    • lupine22

      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.

      March 7, 2016 at 7:06 pm
  • editor

    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:

    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.



    March 8, 2016 at 2:26 pm
    • John

      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.

      March 8, 2016 at 7:51 pm
      • editor


        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.

        March 8, 2016 at 10:10 pm
    • Christina

      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!

      March 8, 2016 at 9:57 pm
      • editor


        That’s interesting. Looks like they at least checked out the blog discussion, then, if they consider it to be “fruitful”.

        March 8, 2016 at 10:09 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: