What we know about the SSPX leaker(s)

Another month, another internal SSPX document (clearly marked “confidential”) is leaked all over the internet. And as when the letters exchanged among the Society’s bishops were leaked, so again the leaker(s) of an internal Society document manage(s) to leave traces. On the last occasion, RORATE CAELI had the following observations:

He used the name “FSPX” and leaked from Britain the texts of the two letters (the PDF file of the first, created on April 5, two days before it was sent – at that time, then, just a draft; the PDF file of the image of the second one), as well as a DOC file with an English translation of the first letter. A friend sent us this link almost immediately after the documents were posted, and one of Rorate’s contributors immediately downloaded all of them for future reference. Then, some hours later, something curious happened: some poster on the fourth page of that same… forum thread said, “Father, you left traces”, or words to that effect; afterwards, the moderator said, “how would you know?”. Then this entire discussion disappeared – at this moment, we knew that there was something with the DOC file. A new download of the DOC file revealed a slightly modified document: its Document Properties were empty (the only other difference is that the little dash, between “Letter of the Three Bishops” and “English Translation” in the filename was moved to the middle). The original file contains “Fr. X” (the actual surname of a priest in the UK District, which we will leave unmentioned at this moment) as author in the Document Properties, and “Monsieur le Supérieur Général,” as title in the Document Properties (a clear sign that it was automatically created by the word processor, by using the registered owner of the software as author and the first words as title – which makes sense, since he used the French original to make his translation).

This time, more care was taken; names were not left in the PDF document properties, but some things could nonetheless be established. Opening up the PDF’s advanced metadata, we find the following:

What does this mean?

– the PDF of the leaked internal, confidential document was made using a Toshiba e-Studio3520c color copier;
– the PDF was created at a time registered as UTC/GMT+1 – British Summer Time.

That’s all we know. For now.

Get AQ Email Updates

47 comments on “What we know about the SSPX leaker(s)

  1. Here’s what’s known:

    The document was created on a computer using British Summer Time for time stamping.

    The first PDF was a rough-draft copy created 2 days before the final draft was sent, which means the person who leaked it (screen name FSPX) was very much an insider.

    The leaker who leaked to Cathinfo (screen name “FSPX”) was from Britain.

    The creator of the DOC file was a priest in the UK district.

    The printer/copier used (Toshiba e-Studio 3520c) to create the PDF isn’t some cheap desktop type. Here’s a photo:

    The 3520c has been discontinued, but it is very comparable to the 3540c, which has a MSRP of around $15,000.

    The first letter was from the Three Bishops. Only one of the three, H.E. Williamson, resides in England.

    The second letter was regarding/referring to one of the Bishops, H.E. Williamson – who resides in England.

    It shouldn’t be very hard for the SSPX to take a look at their books and see exactly who in the England district has gotten one of these rather expensive copiers.

    I fear that someone may be removing items from Bishop Williamson’s desk!

  2. The only comment I would add is that the most recent letter would not have been sent to Bishop Williamson as it spoke of him and of two other confidential matters not necessarily concerning him. But the recent letter would have most certainly been sent to the District Superior of Britain.

    What has not been leaked, assuming it exists, is the letter from Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson directing him in the matter. Of course, I wouldn’t have committed that to paper if I were Bishop Fellay given past history. So the culprit is an insider and a sympathizer but most likely not H.E. himself.

    The other two confidential matters mentioned had no business appearing in the public domain. Methinks some changes will be afoot concerning District Superior assignments.

    • In that first case, Bishop Williamson fessed up to letting someone review it – hence the leak. In the 3 Bishops Letter, he did not offer to take credit for it. And as I said above, I don’t believe he received this letter. So my opinion is that an anti-agreement sympathizer is to blame and the District Superior in Britain has some house cleaning to do. As Bishop Fellay has stated, this is mortal sin against several Bishops we are talking about. Although he may admire Bishop Williamson’s position in all this, I would bet he not doing the Bishop’s bidding in this matter.

  3. So my opinion is that an anti-agreement sympathizer is to blame and the District Superior in Britain has some house cleaning to do.

    Unless something is escaping me, looking at the evidence suggests that the leaker(s) are likely Father Morgan, Bishop Williamson or BOTH – unless there is some mole in the district house working without them knowing.

    Father Morgan and His Excellency reside at the same location. Who else in Britain should have had access to a DRAFT copy of the leaked letter from the bishops?

    It would be helpful to determine where that copier/printer is located. At $15,000, there can’t be too many of them around. Not something you’d likely find at a chapel or even a priory.

  4. As an FSSP attendee myself all i can say was it Bishop Williamson who caused all the sexual scandals and heretical doctrines over the last 60 years? NO! Enough said!

  5. Columba on said:

    There is no reason to presume the leak was not made by one of the recipients or that the motivation was not defense of the Faith.

    • People will assume and consider a wide variety of things in regard to the private documents that were made public.

      That’s what happens when people break trust and publish private matters in public.

      The simple minded assumptions combined with the extreme arrogance that led to the decisions of those involved in this gross breach of integrity have been astonishing.

      That the back biting wretchedness that has been seething for years and has burst out in these wretched displays was as likely to do nothing but harm is to be expected.

      • Columba on said:


        You cry foul not because of what the leakers did, but because you oppose the principles they stand for. If they had a good reason (or honestly believed they did), then they did not sin. Universal morality must not be bent to the purpose of partisan politics.

        Let us take the example of Archbishop Lefebvre. He broke certain rules in the honest belief that he was doing so in defense of the Faith. I’m sure we both agree that ABL’s rule-breaking was indeed necessary. However, he is justified because of his own subjective belief that what he did was right, not because you, I, or anyone else agrees with him.

        In the same sense, the leakers are morally justified if they genuinely held the subjective belief that their action was necessary for the defense of the Faith. This personal justification will hold even if it can somehow be objectively determined that the leaks were not truly necessary for the defense of the Faith.

        Disagree with the leakers, but please refrain from the false accusation of immorality. The usurpation of morality by the media, academia, and partisan politics has been one of the greatest disasters of our time. Woe to him who calls evil good and good evil.

        • There is no reason to presume the leak was not made by one of the recipients or that the motivation was not defense of the Faith.

          Translation: They’ve been caught red handed – the kabuki dance starts now. Let’s begin running interference to somehow justify blatant disobedience – i.e. blasting the most sensitive communications imaginable onto a website completely overrun by angry sedes, trolls and various other “traditional” harpies and malcontents.

          In the same sense, the leakers are morally justified if they genuinely held the subjective belief that their action was necessary for the defense of the Faith. This personal justification will hold even if it can somehow be objectively determined that the leaks were not truly necessary for the defense of the Faith.

          Translation: Time to play the ol’ “defense of the faith” card. It’s a tradition among (modern) traditionalists that can be used to justify nearly anything. Of course leaking an internal letter barring Bp. Williamson from a meeting could not possibly be construed at “defense of the faith” by any sane, developed Catholic, but hey, “defense of the faith” has worked so well for us in the past.

          Woe to him who calls evil good and good evil.

          Translation: – I have a degree in internet theology (see posting history). Hence, I shall threaten you with great “woe” for being clearly outraged over a clear outrage. In turn, I’m clearly outraged by your clear outrage, but since I’m the theologian around here and need to win this argument, I’m declaring you in danger of hell.

          • Columba on said:

            My arguments required translation? The point is that the

            my side=good; your side=bad

            equation, which is the default in secular politics and war propaganda, serves no legitimate purpose in this present crisis. Common Sense should be the only theology training required to make such an assessment.

            • Common sense? Nobody can make the case that leaking these extremely sensitive communications is anything but underhanded insubordination that has caused a great deal of uneccesary consternation and discord, in the society, in the dealings with Rome, on Angelqueen.org and in any other circles involved in the “present crisis.”

              In fact, this was a step beyond insubordination to outright betrayal. It was not done in the light of day as someone acting in “defense of the faith.” This was done underhandedly, with the hope of not getting caught to avoid any consequences.

              Worst of all is that they DID GET CAUGHT. At least if they hadn’t gotten caught I could respect them in some minor way for being cunning – but apparently this was some type of Three Stooges comedy show, with direct evidence left all over the submitted docs.

              Then there’s the web venue they chose… REALLY?

              my side=good; your side=bad

              Am I on a Catholic website? If so, Catholics are not moral relativists. Things are “good” and things are “bad.” We deal with sin and virtue, heaven and hell, angels and demons every single day. It’s what we do.


              • Servitium –

                Did they get caught? I haven’t heard that. The priest’s name on the doc file properties just means that the original french version of the letter was translated into English, or just modified and saved, on software belonging to Fr. X. It does not mean he is the leaker at all. Apparently, copies of the correspondence (and translation) were shared around during the intervening weeks between the time they were written/translated and the time they were leaked. So it could have been any of a number of people who leaked them.

                The leak yesterday of Bishop de Galleretta’s analysis given last September in the Albano is way more disturbing. I believe all those who attend such meetings take an oath of secrecy. At least Bishop Williamson was asked by Bishop Fellay to make one before being allowed to attend… he ended up not attending.

                I hope that the SSPX has already discovered the identities of the leaker(s), but I have not heard that they have. One would think that heads would have rolled by now in the UK if the leaker was discovered, so I fear that the leaker remains.

          • Serv said: They’ve been caught red handed – the kabuki dance starts now.

            Spot on.

            All over here.

            I was stupid enough to appeal to Columba’s “honor” twice in an effort to kindly encourage him to retract his posting of the private docs himself so that he could get (or not get) authorization from you as the owner.

            Needless to say my honest, best attempts at deliberate works of spiritual mercy made not the slightest impression.

        • Columba said: You cry foul not because of what the leakers did, but because you oppose the principles they stand for


          I despise their lack of morals, intellect, and humility


          See your confessor.

          Get behind me.

          I’ll have nothing more to say to you.

          • Columba on said:

            I despise their lack of morals… See your confessor.

            Perhaps you should ask a priest whether it is appropriate to charge immorally against those with whom you disagree in this case. If not, you are guilty of calumny.

            • Columba on said:

              We go from usurping the principle of morality to usurping the definition of the word calumny? You dissimulate, perhaps because you cannot deny the untruthfulness of the accusation against said “anonymous.”

  6. tradical on said:

    In the short term, I think we should be prepared for more of the same behavior in both organizations!!!

    As the SSPX gets nearer to the Pope and the Pope nearer to the SSPX there will be major unrest (to put it mildly) because it will violate some assumptions held by persons in both organizations.

    I believe that in the longterm traditional lay people (SSPX, FSSP, et al) need to consider our plan of action after the SSPX is regularized, be that this year, next year or in the next Pontificate.



    • Tradical,

      My problem with your position is, like many (but not the majority) of others, the regularization has, for you, become the new superheresy. I say this just based on your post about needing to reconsider your plan based on “regularization” and not based on how the SSPX priests change the way the uphold and spread the traditional Catholic Faith.

  7. Columba on said:

    There is a diversion away from the issue of whether traditionalists should submit to Neomodernist rome. Rather, the only acceptible question is how to deal with what Rorate Caeli calls “some of the lowest forms of the human character” opposing the submission.

    In lue of defending the indefensible, the only remaining strategy is to attack the character of opponents. Such a position is doomed to collapse. Otherwise, why the diversion? Fr. Damien Fox has recently reported that only a shrinking 50% of SSPX priests still support submission to the Neomodernists.

      • tradical on said:

        Hi Columba,

        Yes there is a diversion, but I disagree on the issue that you have identified.

        The issue as I see it is as follows:

        If the Pope (Benedict XVI just in case some one is confused about who is the current reigning pontiff) asks you to perform and action that is not against the Faith, do you not have an obligation to perform said action?

        Now given that (according to the letter you linked) obviously someone tried to slip in a compromise in the latest round, Bishop Fellay has remained true to the principles and made the necessary statements.

        I somehow suspect Bishop Fellay won’t be receiving an apology anytime soon – too bad because lots of ‘on-line’ personalities (Priests and laity) owe him an apology.

        With respect to the ‘submit to Neomodernist rome’ bit.

        In this context that is a gross generalization.

        As noted above and in other posts:

        a. Submission will no be to ‘Neomodernist rome’ but to the Pope.
        b. The proposed canonical structure is (less or more) to address such a problem.


        • tRadical said, “If the Pope (Benedict XVI just in case some one is confused about who is the current reigning pontiff) asks you to perform and action that is not against the Faith, do you not have an obligation to perform said action?”

          Jumping in the lake is not against the Faith, and, “No, I will not jump in the lake” if the Pope asked me to.

          However, worshipping the muslims’ “god” is against the Faith and, “No, I will not worship the muslims’ “god”.

          Nostra Aetate is against the Faith.

          • tradical on said:

            Hi Irish,

            “No, I will not jump in the lake” if the Pope asked me to.”

            What is your understanding of the virtues of obedience and humility.

            If Jesus asked you to jump in the lake, what you would you do? The Pope is the Vicar of Christ.

            What if your superior asked you to water a stick? One Saint was asked by her superior to do just that. She watered the stick for a number of years and then in reward for the her virtue of obedience and humility (as the stick was in the middle of the convent yard) God made the stick bloom.

            With respect to ‘muslims’, I once thought as you do.

            However upon further study, in this context (Nostra Aetate), the language is ambiguous and only expounds the teaching of the Church in a partial way. This is typically modernist methodology.

            The following is the complete story:
            12 Q. Who are infidels?
            A. Infidels are those who have not been baptized and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like. (Catechism of St. Pius X)

            In the same manner, who do the protestants and jews worship? Before you object to my question: Members of these religions worship God, their understanding/belief of God is flawed/heretical.

            The important point is that they are false religions, offering false worship and it is a sin against the first commandment (ie Faith) to participate in false worship.

            My point is that it is important to pick out the error in the statements and expose the entire Church Teaching without throwing out the proverbial ‘baby with the bath water’.

        • Columba on said:

          The pope is also a Neomodernist. Submission to the current pope is submission to Neomodernist rome.

          One can argue in favor of that position, but let’s at least be honest about it.

          • tradical on said:

            Hi Columba,

            Ok, let’s break down your argument:

            a. Pope is a NeoModernist (your assumption)

            x+1. therefore Submission to Pope is submission to NeoModernist Rome. (your conclusion)

            There seems to be a few things missing between the Pope and NeoMod Rome.

            How about you fill in the blanks proving that submission to the Pope entails a submission to NeoModernist Rome.

            A definition of NeoModernist Rome would also be very helpful.


            • Columba on said:

              NeoModernist rome would consist of Vatican leadership whose observed actions appear to correlate with the heresies and ambiguities condemned herein:


              • tradical on said:

                So if someone in the Vatican Leadership does not ‘appear to correlate’ with the thesis’ condemned in Pascendi – then he is not part of NeoModernist Rome …. correct?

                Following this line of thought: What part of Pascendi has Pope Benedict recently (last 5 years) contravened?

                Still looking forward to you filling in the blanks.

                • Columba on said:

                  The current pope has:

                  Conducted Assisi 3
                  Beatified JP2
                  Prayed at a mosque toward Mecca bowing down in the Muslim fashion (recent)
                  Praised the heresy of Teilhard de Chardin (recent)
                  Changed the Good Friday prayer in response to Jewish demands
                  Left a huge, lifetime paper trail of Neomodernism
                  Refused to say the Tridentine mass
                  Appointed only Neomodernist bishops (no traditionalists)
                  Ordered or permitted the mistreatment of every traditionalist group already under his power
                  Offered a deal to the SSPX requiring debilitating submission to local Neomodernist ordinaries (and apparently threatened punishment if the deal is not accepted)

                  Neomodernists practice a religion that competes against and opposes traditional Catholicism. As a traditional Catholic, I would destroy their religion if I had the chance. Do you think it is God’s will that they get the power to destroy or diminish us as they have done to every other traditionalist group?

                  • tradical on said:

                    Hi Columba,
                    None of these elements contravene Pascendi.

                    Please explicitly outline (quoting the appropriate paragraph in Pascendi) how the actions performed since he was elected Pope in your list contravene Pascendi.

                    NB: I’m not saying that I agree with them etc, just that I fail to see how any of these elements contravene Pascendi. Special note,

                    • Columba on said:

                      Do you disagree with any of them?

                    • tradical on said:

                      Columba says: June 28, 2012 at 2:53 PM
                      Do you disagree with any of them?

                      That is a diversion from the point (some might call it a red-herring).

                      What is to the point is the question: Which elements contravene Pascendi.

                      I’ll give you a hint: A number are contravened in other Church Teachings, but you said they contravene Pascendi.

                    • Columba on said:

                      There is no need to quote because the sections of Pascendi are well-numbered and so much applicable here that I could easily quote almost the entire document.

                      The subtlety and deception that fools naive trads is warned about in sections 1, 3, and 39.
                      The disorienting combinations liberal and seemingly orthodox behavior is discussed in sections 4 and 5.
                      The pandering to false religions is covered in section 8.
                      The praise for the pantheism of Teilhard de Chardin is relevant to warnings about Modernist pantheism in sections 19 and 39.
                      The motives for preferring for the man-centered, meal-sharing mass over the traditional mass are covered in section 23.
                      The prideful intolerance of Tradition coming from a belief in the evolution of doctrine is covered in section 27.
                      The currently unmet need to appoint bishops to fight Modernism is discussed in sections 49 and 50.

                      Many other parts of the encyclical are also apply. Pascendi is like a detailed map of the modern churchman. Every section is still relevant and aptly lays bare the soul of Neomodernist rome.

                    • tradical on said:

                      Hi Columba,

                      Unfortunately, in each instance you seem to have to make an interpretation / assumption in order to make a judgement of the actions. The links between the actions noted and the characteristics (note these are characteristics not the condemned theses) are tenuous.

                      How about you break down one of the events and outline it as a direct contravention of Pascendi.

                      I would pick the beatification of JPII, but pick which ever one you like.

                    • Columba on said:

                      It is commonly agreed on this website that JP2 was a flaming Modernist, no? Modernism is throroughly condemned in Pascendi (ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X ON THE DOCTRINES OF THE MODERNISTS). That is not tenuous.

                    • tradical on said:

                      You missed the point.

                      How does the Beatification of JP2 come under the interdicts of Pascendi.

                      Whether or not you believe him to be a modernist is irrelevant to Pascendi.

                      Where in Pascendi is the beatification of a person you believe to be a modernist condemned explicitly???

                    • Columba on said:

                      Pascendi is not meant to be a list every possible manifestation of Modernism. Rather, St. Pius X defined a profile for detecting Modernists at work sabotaging the Church.

                      The encyclical provides church leaders tools “to extirpate the errors already propagated and to prevent their further diffusion, and to remove those teachers of impiety through whom the pernicious effects of such diffusion are being perpetuated”.

                      St. Piux did not need to explicitly state the obvious, that such pernicious teachers as JP2 must never be made into saints and that attempting to do so would be a manifestation of Modernism. However, those unconcerned about the threat will use every possible contortion to obscure the plain meaning of Pascendi.

                    • tradical on said:

                      Ok, let’s try this again:

                      [St. Pius X did not need to explicitly state the obvious]
                      The point of about Church Teaching is that it is specific about condemning errors. To make certain, I just reviewed Lamentabili Sane – Syllabus condemning the errors of the Modernists.

                      Guess what: Guilt by association is not listed.

                      [that attempting to do so would be a manifestation of Modernism. ]
                      Once again this is no where in Pascendi or the its Syllabus, therefore you are resting upon your assumptions and your interpretation.

                      To put this another way: If the Pope were to beatify Karl Marx – would that be a manifestation of Communism?

                    • Columba on said:

                      If you cannot intuitively understand that beatifying an undisputed Modernist constitutes a Modernist act, then difference between our perceptions of objective reality is too great for us to achieve any resolution on the topic.

                    • tradical on said:


                      “… beatifying an undisputed Modernist constitutes a Modernist act…”

                      You really got work on your tone and your logic.

                      The point in debate here is whether or not this is objectively an act of the Modernist heresy as noted in Pascendi and Lamentabli.

                      If you can’t point to it in Pascendi etc then you have made a subjective judgement.

                      So you are out of luck.

                      Remember the whole point was to bolster your argument from 9:38am.

                      By objective measures you have been unable to prove your argument.

                      The Beatification has other flaws with it, but Pascendi etc do not support your assertions.

                      If you are going to be of any help in restoring the Church you are going to need to be more flexible and broaden your perspective.

                    • Columba on said:

                      What supports your assertion that no act may be considered Modernist unless it was specifically listed as such in Pascendi or Lamentabli Sane?

                    • tradical on said:

                      “…no act may be considered Modernist unless it was specifically listed as such in Pascendi or Lamentabli Sane?…”

                      Its about holding a specific theses that has been condemned as being heresy. You have to demonstrate that the action in question proves that the person in question holds a condemned thesis.

                      As noted:
                      If the Pope beatified a communist, it does not make him a communist.

          • Here is what we absolutely know concerning the Pope’s actions toward the SSPX:

            1. The SSPX asked for the liberation of the Mass: The Pope liberated the Mass;
            2. The SSPX asked that the (unjust) excommunications be lifted: The Pope lifted them.

            Now the Pope desires the regularization of the SSPX. What else is a good and faithful son to do?

            More than a decade ago Fr. Schmidberger gave a conference relating that, during discussions with Rome, a high-ranking authority told him, ‘the Church is a mess!’ Fr. Schmidberger replied, ‘Bring us (the SSPX) back, and we will come with mops and buckets.’

            He said it more than a decade ago (on the record). Why now are some (I believe a very, very small minority) surprised that the SSPX is following the same path?

            I fail to see the crisis.

            • tradical on said:

              Hi Augustine,

              You could also add:

              3. The SSPX asked for Doctrinal Discussions: These have occurred.

              Given the irrationality that a number of faithful and even some priests (thinking primarily about those posting on cathinfo) have exhibited IMO the crisis is due to some fundamental cultural assumptions about the aims of the SSPX, and ++Lefebvre have been violated. I’m not saying their cultural ‘assumptions’ are correct.

  8. tradical on said:

    Hi Vinny,

    Au contraire mon ami!!!

    You have completely misunderstood me.

    I wrote: “… need to consider our plan of action …”

    My intention was to try and refocus the discussion away from the paranoia surrounding a ‘regularization’ according to Bishop Fellay’s criteria (Pope asks and it doesn’t endanger Faith etc) and start thinking strategically about the mid to long-term.

    I’ve been in discussions, punctuated by intense arguments, with conservative Catholics for almost 2 years.

    Based on what I’ve heard, my thought is that the Church will need a new type of Catholic Action group similar to the Legion of Mary, but focused internally not externally.


  9. All I can say is that when Fr. Black was UK Superior all was harmony. +Williamson’s ‘banishment’ to London has merely recreated the caucus which he ran in the USA and the fruits thereof are self-evident. Whilst Fr. Morgan should not be held accountable for the views of his late father, I am surprised that his background and approach are not raised more often. Clergy who were not prepared to bow to his narrow views have been moved elsewhere.

    • Columba on said:

      It is accetpable to spread anonymous rumors, detract, and calumniate, as long as the target is somebody who is skeptical about submitting to Neomodernist rome.

      • Actually, almost all of the rumors, detractions, and calumniations have been spread by those opposing any agreement with Rome.

        I have my reservations about an agreement (mostly concerning the diocesan bishops) but it is still far too early to panic. Those posters on a certain website who are wooing others to the sedevacantist position by screaming that Fellay is betraying the Faith will have much to answer for on the day of judgment.

Leave a Reply