 |
| Fr. Paul-Joseph, interviewed below, is on the left side |
Considering how the Synopsis of the French Bishops' Survey on the TLM is being weaponized against traditional Catholics, it seems fitting to present here, for the record, a translation of the interview that Fr. Benoît Paul-Joseph, the superior of the FSSP's French district, gave to Le Salon Beige on June 7, 2021. Recall that Fr. Paul-Joseph has met now twice with Pope Francis and may be considered to be in possession of the salient facts both at home and in Rome. - PK
(Salon-Beige introduction:) Following rumors of a
forthcoming restriction of the right, recognized by the Motu Proprio Summorum
Pontificum, to celebrate mass according to the 1962 missal, and the recent
decision by Mgr Minnerath, Archbishop of Dijon, to expel the Fraternité Sacerdotale
Saint-Pierre (FSSP) from his diocese, Le Salon beige interviewed Abbé Benoît
Paul-Joseph, superior of the FSSP's French district. In particular, we wanted
to look back at the French Bishops' Conference's summary of the application of
the Motu proprio Summorum pontificum, which is particularly critical of the
FSSP.
Le Salon Beige: A few months ago, the French Bishops' Conference published a summary of
the results of a consultation commissioned by the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith on the application of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum,
listing a number of positive and negative points, the latter being the most
numerous. The first of these concerns the unity of the Church, which would be
damaged by the use of the Extraordinary Form. How do you respond to those who
believe you are forming a parallel Church?
Fr. Paul-Joseph: In his Motu Proprio
Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of “two expressions of the one
Roman Rite”: one ordinary (the Missal of Paul VI) and the other extraordinary
(the Missal of St. Pius V). So there is indeed a distinction between these
liturgical forms, even though they belong to the same rite. But this is
precisely the principle of unity, which necessarily includes plurality
(otherwise it would be unicity): in the Church as elsewhere, unity does not
mean uniformity, but rather the harmonious coming together of parts, with their
proper differences. If “walking towards unity” means seeking to erase little by
little everything that distinguishes us, then we're on the wrong track, and
we're even destroying the richness and harmony of unity.
Secondly, in concrete
terms, the apostolates entrusted to us always function more or less like a
parish or chapel: a mission received from the local bishop, a dedicated pastor,
a community of faithful, parish activities specific to the community, preparation
for the sacraments, their celebration, apostolic initiatives carried out by the
community's faithful, etc. The result is that, inevitably, the apostolate
functions with relative autonomy: not with the aim of constituting a parallel
Church, or “a parish within a parish”, but because it's a natural movement.
On the one hand, the faithful of the Extraordinary Form are accused of
forming a separate, isolated, withdrawn group... and on the other, few French
bishops have created a personal parish for this form in their diocese (as
proposed in the motu proprio). In contrast to other countries, the FSSP doesn't
even have a personal parish in France, and in some churches, your priests have
limited slots, sometimes causing frustration among the faithful. Isn't there a
contradiction here: if you're to be better integrated, shouldn't you be
entrusted with fully-fledged parishes?
What is certain is that
several of our apostolates now find themselves in a complicated situation in
which the canonical framework does not correspond to the de facto situation.
Let me explain: in several cities, the territorial parish to which our apostolate
is attached and on which it depends is either of comparable size (number of
faithful, parish activities, financial resources, etc.) or smaller. In the
latter case, this creates an imbalance and friction, as we try to force a
reality into a framework that is inappropriate because it is too small.
Inevitably, this generates almost insoluble difficulties in terms of
organization, communication and human relations. Such a situation - a fortiori
when the church is shared between two communities - multiplies the risk of
rancor and resentment, as the “hosted” community always has the feeling that it
is being tolerated or welcomed, but in any case that it is not at home, even
though it is more numerous and more dynamic than the one hosting it. In such a
case, I believe that the personal parish is the best solution: the most natural
and the most likely to allow for peaceful functioning (for comparison, in the
USA, the FSSP has 39 personal parishes).
In reality, this is often a
form of anachronism, in the sense that the canonical status of the apostolate
(especially in the big cities) has not kept pace with its development. The
priest and the faithful concerned therefore give the impression of going beyond
the framework, but because it is not adapted! With the growth of many of our
apostolates, this question has become inescapable.
One of the stumbling blocks is your rejection of concelebration. Is this
really contrary to the letter and spirit of the motu proprio Summorum
Pontificum?
The question of
concelebration is a delicate one, particularly in our institute, given our
internal history and the crisis we've been through. As a preamble, let me
remind you that if the majority of FSSP priests do not concelebrate, this is
not due to an unofficial prohibition by their superiors, nor to an
impossibility linked to their constitutions (which would be impossible), but to
their personal choice, as the Church allows.
Secondly, it is also
important to remember that, by virtue of their membership of the Fraternity of
St. Peter, an Apostolic Society of Pontifical Right, whose history and very
name originate in fidelity to the See of Peter, the priests of our institute are
in full ecclesial communion. There can be no doubt about this.
The Motu Proprio does not
speak directly of concelebration, but recalls the dignity of Paul VI's missal,
asking priests not to exclude it on principle. In our case, our constitutions,
definitively approved by the Holy See in 2003, recognize that celebration in
the Extraordinary Form is constitutive of our charism. This means that an FSSP
priest cannot receive a mission that would include the celebration of the
liturgy in the Ordinary Form.
As for concelebration (in
the Ordinary Form), while it is one of the signs of communion with the bishop,
it is not the only one, nor is it the highest (it has only been practised since
fairly recent times), and is in no way binding.
Also, the priests of the
FSSP, because of the liturgical choice they have made, which is based on
objective theological reasons, do not wish to concelebrate Mass in the ordinary
form as provided for by canon and liturgical law. I can understand that this is
difficult for some bishops to accept, but it seems unfair to me to suspect or
penalize people who make use of a right, or to put their motives behind their
choice. The priests of the FSSP have never questioned the validity of the Mass
celebrated according to Paul VI's missal; on the contrary, they have always
pointed out its inadequacies and ambiguities, in a filial spirit. That's why,
since they have permission, they prefer not to concelebrate it.
In this regard, I would
like to point out that the question of concelebration was submitted to the
Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in 2010, which recalled that it is always a
possibility, never an obligation.
This summary indicates that places dedicated to the Extraordinary Form
have an average of between 20 and 70 worshippers. Does this correspond to the
reality you know? And are baptisms really “one-off and exceptional”?
I can't understand how such
figures could be given, and many people have expressed astonishment. For our
part, we've been keeping relatively precise statistics for almost ten years. We
find that in our sixty or so Mass locations, the average is around 200
worshippers. Apart from twenty or so locations where the average is less than
100, in the other apostolates we are well over the reported 70-plus mark. Over the past
ten years, we have seen a steady increase in the number of our faithful of 8%
per year; this increase is constant, both in absolute terms and in growth
rates. What's more, between 2015 and 2021, we have been given a mission in ten
new dioceses.
And you only have to attend
a Mass celebrated in the Extraordinary Form to see that it's mainly the younger
generations who are joining us. This proves the missionary dimension of this
liturgical form, which is not reserved for initiates but continues to attract
souls to Jesus Christ. And that's what really counts.
Moreover, the youthfulness
of our congregations and the large number of families mean that requests for
baptisms are not only regular, but significant. To see for yourself, it's
interesting to consult the parish registers in which baptisms are recorded: in
relation to the number of priests or faithful in the entire parish territory,
baptisms administered in the extraordinary form are far from exceptional!
Finally, my many visits to
the towns where we are present have shown me that the number of adult baptisms
and confirmations continues to grow. In 10 years, there has been an impressive
progression: I no longer see confirmation ceremonies without adults, and there
are few places where there are no catechumens.
Some bishops wonder about theological training and the poverty of
preaching. Is the training provided in the FSSP seminary monitored?
This remark is surprising,
to say the least: people often tell us that they have joined our apostolates
because of the quality of the homilies, which they find clear, well-constructed
and instructive, unlike those of many parishes in the ordinary form. Of course,
the quality of a homily depends to a large extent on the priest's disposition
and oratory skills, but I think that the FSSP priests least at ease in this
kind of exercise will stick to a catechetical presentation, perhaps a little
dry or elementary, but faithful to the Catholic faith and therefore never
useless or out of place.
As for the formation in our
seminary, it obviously complies with the provisions of the Holy See as
specified in Canon Law. The seven years of seminary studies follow a
comprehensive program called “Ratio Studiorum”. This was presented to the Holy
See in 2012, via the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which submitted it to the
Congregation for Catholic Education (the Roman congregation in charge of
seminaries) for validation. Discussions took place and a number of
clarifications were requested. It was finally in 2015 that this comprehensive
document (which gives general norms, the number of hours for each subject and a
description of the content of each course) received the approval of the Holy
See. In addition, the seminary has its
own course catalog, specifying the precise content of each course, the
essential elements of bibliography, the number of hours and the types of exams.
Speaking of seminaries, we've been following your interest in the
Domaine de Pontigny, which was eventually sold to the Schneider Foundation. How
far along are you in setting up a seminary in France? Are any bishops helping
you in this search?
Given the development of
the FSSP in France, it seemed appropriate at our last General Chapter in July
2018 to plan for the foundation of a formation house in France: our
French-speaking seminarians are currently in formation at our bilingual
seminary in Wigratzbad (Bavaria).
Because of its symbolic
dimension, its geographical location, its size and its magnificent abbey
church, Pontigny Abbey matched our specifications perfectly. Today, we still
want to found a seminary in France, but we're looking for a place that meets
our needs (geographical location, church, surface area). A number of bishops
have shown me their goodwill or even their support in pursuing this project,
sometimes pointing me in the direction of certain locations that seemed
suitable.
During the health crisis, the faithful were deprived of the sacraments
for a long time, and communion on the tongue was often suspended. Should rite
take precedence over charity (not to contaminate one's neighbor), to take up
another of the synthesis's criticisms? Should we really pit the health of the
body against that of the soul?
Should the rite come before
charity? Slogans are always reductive and caricature reality, and this one is
no exception! In the heat of the health crisis and with the pressure put on by
the Government, I think there was an over-reaction on the part of certain
bishops, with a kind of complex in the face of the civil powers that led
several pastors to play the good pupil, i.e. to maximize health measures. I
think we've sometimes fallen into the unreasonable, literally. In the spring of
2020, the majority of dioceses in France issued instructions that communion
should no longer be given directly on the tongue.
Beyond the question of the
validity of such a ban, it was not supported by any scientific or medical
study: it was taken for granted that distributing communion on the tongue
carried a serious and proven risk of transmitting the virus. In other countries,
however, bishops' conferences have set up a scientific committee to address the
issue, and have concluded that the distribution of communion on the tongue does
not entail excessive risks, or at least can be regulated from a health point of
view.
In France, this caused a
great deal of harm to many of the faithful, who didn't want to receive the Holy
Eucharist in their hands, and had no choice but to stop taking communion, or to
find a church where communion was given on the tongue. I don't think we can say
that this is a matter of vanity, nor of ritual rigidity, still less of a form
of Pharisaism: it has to do with faith in the Lord's real presence and cannot
be regarded with disdain, all the more so at a time when we claim to respect
ever more different ways of “living one's faith”.
