Rorate Caeli

Court-mandated reinstatement at the SSPX

The case of Fathers Laguérie and Héry, currently in Bordeaux (who left or were expelled from the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X-FSSPX/SSPX, according to the view of each party), is widely known to those who follow Traditional Catholic news. The SSPX version of the events is available here (English). A different presentation of the facts is available here (English).

After having tried, unsuccessfully, to appeal to ecclesiastical courts, Fathers Laguérie and Héry took their case to the civil courts, with the argument that their procedural rights had been denied by the Society's leadership (or, more exactly, by the "Religious Association Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X", which is the civil name of the District of France of the SSPX).

And, last Thursday, the High Court of Justice of Nanterre (Department of Hauts-de-Seine) delivered its opinion (not yet available online), ordering the Fraternity to reinstate both priests who, according to the Court, had been unlawfully expelled from the Association (the statement of both priests is available here; the District of France has not yet released any official statement).

The Fraternity may appeal.


  1. Er, I don't speak French despite best efforts of everyone but me (I thought at the time it was a high principal of true Englishmen to refuse to learn such a thing reeking of garlic and suspicious nasal tones).

    Oops. That was stupid idea.

    Is there / are there problems with seeking redress for THIS problem in THIS court?

    This is just a question.

  2. This blog, of course, has no opinion regarding either party in this complex case, but it is sad that, exactly 100 years after the introduction of the dreadful "Religious Associations" (Associations Cultuelles) in French Law, one party decided to resort to a court of the Republic, under the Law of Separation itself, which created such associations, to settle the dispute.

  3. No, I don't think the secular courts have any business getting involved in this sort of thing.

    How in the world can they tell who can get along in an association and who can't?

    The question increasingly comes: How long will they let us live? Not very much longer, I'm afraid.

  4. Now, if they were Novus Ordo priests, I expect this post crammed with, with...?

    Ce n'est pas vrai?

  5. The fallacious doctrine of separation of church and state to which newchurch & its pontiff subscribe, has been used as a subterfuge for turning the tail aganist the head. The state will increasingly dictate what is permitted to the church to propagate.

    These are early days yet but there is worse to come. We have already heard loud public voices for sections of the Sacred Scriptures to be toned down, rewritten or removed. There are quite a few NOites involved in trashing the Douai-Rheims & New Jerusalem for "inclusive" versions of The Bible. They obviously take no heed of God's admonition therein - The Book of The Apocalypse 22:18-19.

    When you understand what is taking place, post-conciliar political correctness assumes an even more sickening and pathetic palour. The behaviour by NO hierarchs & their sycophants is absolutely cretinous.

  6. The World Government and Court is bad enough; now all they have to do to make it perfect is put a Frog in charge.

    The particular concept in question is hardly coherent, any way you look at it. The State is now a religion. So they are actually advocating separating Church from Church.

    Hey, that's been happening throughout history.
    And it only got a big boost, not a start, from Luder and Cal (a Protestant law firm - Luder was the original family name, by the way, and it is Krautspeak for "carrion").

    You might not have heard it here first, but I won't be the last, that's for certain.

  7. At first this news didn't sound all that interesting but after thinking about it for a while it appears to take on more significance. Is there precedent for this type of action in the French courts? Why isn't the Vatican saying anything about this? And if they don't have a problem with it, would they have a problem with the SSPX taking them to court to force the retraction of the excommunications? If this had happened in the USA, there would have been an enormous controversy.

  8. Dioceses (Associations Diocésaines) have special status among the French "Associations Cultuelles", thanks to a common interpretation of the law by the French Republic and the Holy See (which allowed for the limited acceptance of the new regime of separation by Pope Pius XI with his encyclical Maximam Gravissimamque); which is why this decision would not concern French bishops -- and there have been precedents.

  9. I'm sure New Catholic is correct. Not that the Frog bishops would do anything.

    The information NC provides shows, again, that Pius XI made some really huge mistakes (just ask the Cristos). None of the "good" popes, before the Council of Glorious Memory and after Pius X, were all they should have been. Each in his own way incrementally prepared the way for the disaster. Even Leo XIII goofed in that regard at one point.

    We didn't get into the mess we're in overnight, as most know. NOTHING in the Church ever happens swiftly. Protestantism wouldn't exist were that not so.

    So it goes.


Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.


(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!