El Liberalismo es Pecado: 127 Years Later, It Still Is!

From Bishop Williamson’s most recent edition of “Eleison Comments”, a necessary reminder….


Number CCLXXXIX (289)

26 January 2013



Is liberalism really as horrible as it is made out to be ? This or that person is accused of being a “liberal”, yet a number of those accused vigorously deny that the label attaches to them. Who is right? Accusers or accused ? Since “liberalism” is one name for the all-embracing error of modern times, responsible for throwing souls without number into the fires of Hell, it surely deserves one more approach.

Now freedom relates either to what I am free from, i.e. some constraint or other, or it relates to what I am free for, i.e. some purpose or other. Of these two relatives of freedom, the negative freedom from constraint comes both before the positive purpose in time, but after it in importance. It comes before in time, because if I am constrained from achieving a purpose, my achieving that purpose is out of the question. On the other hand it comes after it in importance because the value of the non-constraint will depend on the value of the purpose for which it is used. Thus holding a knife frees me from being unarmed, but if I use that freedom-from for cutting up food to eat, the freedom-from is good, but if I use it for carving up my grandmother, the freedom-from becomes murderous.

Now what liberalism does is to make the freedom-from a – or the – supreme value in itself, regardless of the freedom-for, or the good or bad purpose for which it will be used. Thus liberty or freedom-from is made independent of a good or bad purpose, independent of right and wrong. But the difference between right and wrong is an essential part of God’s creation, designed from the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden onwards for man to make his choice between Heaven and Hell. Therefore to put man’s lack of constraint in front of God’s law is to put man before God.

Being then the implicit denial of God’s moral law, of right and wrong, liberalism implicitly makes war on God, putting man’s human “right” to choose in front of God’s divine right to command. Now as Archbishop Lefebvre used to say, liberals come in 36 different varieties, by no means all of which mean to make war on God. But war on God remains the logical conclusion of liberals giving supreme value to liberty, and it is the reason why for many of them, anything goes. God and his rules having been pushed to one side, then the adoration of liberty becomes for liberals their substitute religion, a religion with no rules except their own will. Being moreover a substitute religion, it must get rid of the true religion which blocks its way, and so liberals naturally become crusaders against God’s order in all corners of his Creation: marriages free of gender, families free of children, States free of a head, life free of morals, and so on, an d so on. Such a war on God’s reality is completely insane, yet liberals, apparently so sweet to their fellow-men whom they are “liberating”, can in fact be utterly cruel to anybody who gets in the way of their crusade. It is in the logic of their substitute religion that they need observe no normal decency in trampling upon anti-liberals, who deserve no compassion.

For 20 centuries the Catholic Church condemned such insanity. Yet at Vatican II the official Church gave way to it, by for instance declaring (“Dignitatis Humanae”) that every State must protect rather its citizens’ freedom-from civil constraint in the practice of their choice of religion than their freedom-for the practice of the true religion. And now the leaders of a certain religious Society want to put it under the authority of the Vatican II Romans. For the true religion, such action is, as Archbishop Lefebvre called it, “Operation Suicide”. But then liberalism is intrinsically suicidal.

Kyrie eleison.

Get AQ Email Updates

4 comments on “El Liberalismo es Pecado: 127 Years Later, It Still Is!

  1. Sorry gpm,

    I know you’ll disagree with me but …
    “… now the leaders of a certain religious Society want to put it under the authority of the Vatican II Romans. For the true religion, such action is, as Archbishop Lefebvre called it, “Operation Suicide”. …”

    Everything is good up to this last point.

    Once again, H.E. leaves out a number of other things noted by Archbishop Lefebvre after the consecrations even in the last six months of the life.

    Such as by showing the vitality of Tradition the SSPX would convince Rome to negotiate.

    Telling half of the truth is bad and smearing the rest with innuendo is just wrong.


  2. Ah, Ned. Happy to see the Great Game lives on.

    Anyway, having taken the pledge re. HE Williamson and trying to hold my breath until my eyes bug out and I turn blue before saying anything about +F, either, I’ll do me level best to be “fair and balanced”:

    . Call it just a suspicion. Call it a whim. Call it fairies sprinkling pixie dust or what have you. I remain convinced that SOMETHING is afoot, has been for a long time and will, some sunny day, be plopped down on everyone’s doorstep with a thud: “DEAL! WE GOTTA DEAL! HOORAY! SEE – WE WIN! YAAAAAAY!” At which point, the hierarchy and clergy of the Society will undergo transformation and become, in time, either supernumeraries on stage or just off stage with the choir, singing soprano, as the Revolution’s opera buffa plays on and on and on.
    From reports issued from the pews across Uh-mar-uh-kuh, the transformation is already underway with backpeddling on Church / Jew issues, spreading hossanas for certain “conservative” Nervous Oreo mitre-bearers, selective “shaming” of the folks raising questions about where Menzingen is headed, etc. All true? All just agitprop, not worth the electrons necessary to post it on the internet? I really don’t know – for sure. But to say that the selective responses by, ahem, “certain” higher ups in the Society when pressed for hard facts, the warp speed “excomm” of +W, the onoing enigma of a certain Society mouthpiece with ostensibly HEAVY connex in the “elder brethren ( sic!) monied community”, an individual who makes NO effort to conceal his own Zionist proclivities, to say that that means ZIP would, to be “fair and balanced”, be a significant understatement of significant issues.

    . The reappearance of photo-documented negotiations and “discussions” (which long preceded the disastrous tour de farce chats between +F and the Vatican) – an item not being covered up anywhere other than by Menzingen, as I understand it – does make one wonder about the “real intent” of the SG, based on more than a decade of such negotiations and “discussions” with people clearly interested in castrating the Society in the name of “unity” with the Modernist cabal in Rome.

    In other words, if all the “rumors” ( consisting of eyewitness testimony, photos and the presentation of actual documents supporting the claims ) are just that, then why do the SG and his praetorians not come forth with their own eyewitnesses, photos and documents to DISPROVE them?

    Look, I have no grudge against either +W or +F, personally

  3. (continued) Sorry, hit the enter tab by mistake…….

    and I hope they stay far from Rome until it is back in sane hands, again.

    But I am NOT sure, and I think it is wise to be suspicious, that that will be the case. I understand from Society-insiders with many years invested that +F has a deal bug in his ear since he first came into power. These folks, who know much more than I, make plain that it has been his ultimate goal and one of the reasons he politicked to get the SG-ship in the first place, against the wishes of ABL.

    So, maybe all the rumors will turn out to be nothing more. Maybe all the insiders I know ( and find credible ) are full of beans. But, having watched this very strange series of miscalculated parries and thrusts, whoopsies and “oh-wait-here’s-what-the-SG-REALLY-meant-when-he-said-X-or-Y-or-Z” for the past few years, I ain’t so sure that is going to be the way it ultimately turns out.

    Looking at it organizationally, the Society is in deep doo-doo. It may just turn out to actually commit suicide if the SG’s track record, especially over the past 12 months, continues apace and he jogs right out of the Coliseum and straight into the Tiber, taking something that took decades to build right along with him.

    This affair is entirely political. And that’s why it’s so damn serious.

    Were it only theological, there would be no question about any of these people or what they are up to. There would not have been any discussions with the reprobate liberals in Rome to begin with.


  4. The following is a translation from the original French by a Traditionalist I know. and respect highly. There are comments in a few places which are not from the book review being translated but which should be most apparenton. The final set of comments, by Fr. Hewko, deserve the following recommendation from me. A superb Catholic Traditionalist, whose name is widely know, has said to me of Fr. Hewko that the good priest is an exceptionally

    Review of “Towards a Necessary Reconciliation” by Fr. Michel Lelong, promoted by GREC
    By Gentiloup (posted November 14, 2012)
    From the web site Un évêque s’est levé !

    I just finished reading the book by Fr. Michel Lelong, entitled: Towards the Necessary Reconciliation [Pour la nécessaire réconciliation (pub: December 2011)].

    It is a small work of 159 pages, not exciting but quickly read. It is an exposé of GREC, “Groupe de Réflexion Entre Catholiques” [Catholic Think Tank].

    This booklet summarizes the work accomplished by GREC, it is a sort of glowing report by the author who was present from the beginning of this organization. His goal is to open up the SSPX to reconciliation with conciliar Rome. Nevertheless, this little book unintentionally clarifies the downward slide of the head of the SSPX and why the ralliement [an apropos French word for the effort to rejoin with Rome] with conciliar Rome was able to corrupt the spirit at the heart of the SSPX.

    This “think tank” was founded in 1997 with the goal of integrating the SSPX into modernist Rome and convincing it to accept the Second Vatican Council.

    The founders were Mr. and Mrs. Gilbert Pérol and Fr. Michel Lelong, author of the book and fervent defender of inter-religious dialogue and the Council. Mr Pérol had been the Ambassador of France to Rome.

    GREC’s goal is not ambiguous. It is clearly defined throughout this book by different protagonists as being “Interpreting Vatican II in the light of Tradition,” according to the formula John-Paul II gave to Archbishop Lefebvre in 1978.

    Fr. Michel Lelong is convinced of the benefits of the Council, especially of Nostra Aetate, and is a specialist in dialoguing with Muslims.

    The Ambassador’s idea was to enter into dialogue with traditional Catholics of the SSPX in the same way that he had dialogued with other religions and from which, to his regret, the SSPX had been excluded.

    Fr. Alain Lorans, one of the four founders of GREC, was the spokesman for the SSPX District of France. He immediately obtained permission from Bishop Fellay to participate in the dialogue “for a necessary reconciliation.” He has been very attentive in keeping Bishop Fellay up-to-date with the progress of this dialogue.

    The ‘Charter’ of this group was defined by Mr. Pérol shortly before his death: it is “to interpret Vatican II in light of Tradition,” which Benedict XVI himself calls the hermeneutic of continuity, in opposition to the hermeneutic of rupture, as Archbishop Lefebvre ruefully observed at the end of his long quest to reach a tentative agreement with this Conciliar Church. In the end, he could see that an agreement was impossible, hence the consecrations of the four bishops in 1988.

    Commencing its activities with a small committee formed around Mrs. Pérol, Fr. Michel Lelong and Fr. Emmanuel le Chalard, the Group “did not cease to give discreet and special support to GREC.”

    Two other priests contributed decisively to the creation and life of our Catholic think tank. One of them who has since returned to God was the Dominican, Fr. Olivier de La Brosse, the other, Fr. Lorans of the SSPX. I [Fr. Lelong] got to know them in 1997 during a dinner to which we had been invited by Mrs. Pérol. On that day GREC was born. Page 24

    Details: This meeting took place in Rome at Madame Pérol’s home.
    • Fr. Olivier de La Brosse, who died in 2009, was the spokesman for the Bishops’ Conference of France.
    • Fr. Lorans was the spokesman for the [SSPX] District of France.He had obtained permission from Bishop Fellay to dialogue for a necessary reconciliation with the group.

    Thus we have the four founders of GREC:

    • Mrs. Pérol
    • Fr. Michel Lelong
    • Fr. Lorans
    • Fr. de la Brosse

    In the months that followed, the protagonists remained quietly within their respective communities.

    Soon after, conferences would be organized, but without fanfare, for it was necessary that this should remain confidential.

    Fr. Michel Lelong wrote, “When we meet in friendship, I often think of Gilbert Pérol who, while actively participating in Christian-Muslim dialogue, had the idea of this dialogue between Catholics.” Page 27

    The apostolic nuncios supported this group, along with various other personalities of the conciliar church who regularly informed the Pope of the progress of the dialog.

    The SSPX District Superior of France, Fr. Ribeton, joined the group and, a little later, so did the head of The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest.

    To shorten this exposé, you should know that the initiative of the lifting of the excommunications of the four bishops of the SSPX can be traced back to GREC who had already requested it as a part of the celebration of Jubilee year 2000! In any case Fr. Lelong claims it explicitly in this book and provides many quotations from exchanges of letters among the group, the Roman authorities, and the superior of the SSPX.

    When Mgr Fellay tells us that the lifting of the excommunications is one of points of the Society’s roadmap, that is also false!

    They keep returning to the term “full communion.”

    As far as I’m concerned, having been a priest for fifty years and having devoted my ministry to the relationship between the Church and the Muslims, I am deeply attached to the teachings of Vatican II and I am trying to raise awareness and understanding of those [teachings] among our fellow Catholics who follow Archbishop Lefebvre and his successors. (Fr. M. Lelong Page 42)

    Thus, the message is clear—Bishop Fellay does not come to play as a naïve schoolboy pretending suddenly to discover in 2012, through a letter from the Pope, the expectation of SSPX recognition of Vatican II. This has been clear from the debut of the discussions with GREC!

    On January 6, 2004, Fr. de la Brosse sent a letter to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos (Ecclesia Dei Commission) to give an account of the “Tradition and Modernity” colloquium organized by GREC on November 22, 2003, in Paris:

    At our request, Bishop Philippe Breton was appointed by Bishop Ricard, President of CEF [French Bishops Conference], as the “affiliated bishop” of the group, to attend the meetings and provide the opening prayer, with Fr. Lorans of the SSPX presiding over the final prayer. . . .

    Thus the very purpose of the colloquium seems to have been established: French Catholics of various and even opposite sensitivities have freely agreed to engage in a dialogue that does not prejudge a total reconciliation in any way—a field reserved to competent superiors—but this opens the possibility, when the times comes, that the dialogue caucus will find before them partners capable of understanding and mutual respect. . . .

    The number of participants was 40 people, all of whom were invited individually by group members. . . .
    Very great discretion was observed at the express request of Bishop Ricard, which corresponded to our intentions. No professional journalists were present in the room. No information or comments have been leaked during the following days, neither in the Catholic nor the secular press. (Page 45 – 46)

    Thus, thanks to support from the Apostolic Nuncio and also to the efforts of Frs. La Brosse and Barthe, Cardinal Ratzinger, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, was kept informed of our activities. The election of Benedict XVI was welcomed . . . with great hope. . . . We know, indeed, how during the first months of his pontificate the new Pope met with Bishop Fellay and made statements and decisions that clearly manifested his desire to reestablish unity in the Church through a hermeneutic of continuity and not of rupture with regards to the teachings of Vatican II. (Pages 48-49)


    Father Lelong and I propose to inform them of this development, of our work methods as well as the results as a whole to our concerned partners, that is to say, on a priority basis: the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, then the Apostolic Nunciature, the Bishops Conference of France, and the superiors of the Fraternities of St. Pius X and St. Peter. I added some traditional religious communities who had said they were interested and may wish to become participants in some of GREC’s projects. (pp.47-48)

    After the Motu Proprio of 2007, the organizers of GREC sent a new letter to the Pope, asking him again to lift the excommunications.

    From page 55 follows a history of GREC’s activities and of the key figures of different sides who are to be involved in this process.

    Following the Pope’s meeting with Bishop Fellay in 2005, GREC expanded the SSPX side [NB] to include, among others: a very active, very involved Fr. Célier, Jacques-Régis du Cray, even earlier, Marie-Alix Doutrebente.

    [Editor’s note: Not a few SSPX priests, (outside those cited, who themselves are very involved), have participated in GREC’s work, often as speakers. Some are cited in the book, others are not, whom I know by implication from elsewhere. I prefer to not reveal their names, since I do not accurately know their current position regarding the ralliement.]

    It was then that the colloquia revealed the “doctrinal and spiritual convergence” between the two parties.

    On June 10, 2010, a GREC meeting was held with the purpose of declaring its support of the Pope following “a particularly unfair media campaign,” around “Fr. Matthew Rouge, Rector of St. Clotilde Basilica in Paris . . . and Fr. Lorans, in charge of SSPX communications.”
    That evening, thanks to two speakers’ presentations and the discussion that followed, we sensed how much a reconciliation between all Catholics around Pope Benedict XVI was expected and hoped for, thanks to him.
    GREC devoted its meetings to Vatican II, Archbishop Lefebvre, and the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, with the participation of historians and theologians providing different points of view, so as to make its contribution during the 2010-2011 academic year.(Page 69)

    At the time of this writing, one can hope that these meetings will lead to an agreement without delay. But the SSPX must understand that if it has much to offer to Rome, it also has much to receive from it. It must therefore stop rejecting Vatican II outright and accept the guiding principles in interpreting them as proposed by the Holy Father today. (Father Michel Lelong Page 85)

    The stories of different GREC actors follow, including those (for the SSPX) of Fr. Lorans, Marie-Alix Doutrebente and Jacques-Régis du Cray.

    A very important place is given to Fr. Paul Aulagnier, who began when he was District Superior of France, before the foundation of GREC, to open a dialogue in 1992 with conciliarists (notably with Dom de Lesquen, Abbot of Notre Dame de Randol). He continued this role later after becoming a member of the IBP [Institute de bon pasteur/Good Shepherd Institute]. Still very active in support of the ralliement, he has already rejoined and has obtained a parish in the conciliar structure.

    Beginning in 1992, as District Superior of the SSPX in France, I was happy to initiate new contacts with recognized ecclesiastical authorities.
    One day, when passing by Randol . . . Abbot Dom de Lesquen was talking to a young man in the forecourt of the monastery. Knowing the role he had played with Dom Gérard during his rapprochement with Rome on July 10, 1988, I approached him and spoke with him . . . about the rapprochement with Rome, of a normalization of the SSPX with Rome . . . (Fr. Aulagnier Page 104)

    To understand the process of ralliement, it suffices to know the underground work of the group whose members admit to it.

    Reminder: this book was published in December 2011

    It is very important to be familiar with this book so as to know what is important in the future not to do: no doctrinal discussions at any level so long as Rome has not converted.

    This was the point made by Archbishop Lefebvre and which has prevailed until the narrowly missed ralliement in June 2012:

    “No practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement.”

    Inferiors do not form the superiors, and yet, after a practical agreement, the SSPX would find itself under the authority of a modernist pope and conciliar congregations.

    The truth does not support the least compromise with error, and yet the process initiated by GREC is nothing other than a search for compromise.

    In conclusion, here is what Fr. Hewko has to say:


    Fr. Ludovic Barrielle (so highly revered by the Archbishop) commented in 1982:

    I am writing this to serve as a lesson for everyone. The day that the SSPX abandons the spirit and rules of its Founder, it will be lost. Furthermore, all our brothers who, in the future, allow themselves to judge and condemn the Founder and his principles, will show no hesitation in eventually taking away from the Society the traditional teaching of the Church and the Mass instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Quoted by Fr. Hewko in his Open Letter to His Excellency Bishop Fellay, Society Priests, Religious and Faithful, dated November 8, 2012.

Leave a Reply