'Media Correspondence - What is Said v What is printed'

 

Kind regards,

i

Dear Readers, A further article dealing with the current situation in Christchurch, New Zealand, where the Bishop of Christchurch has controversially banned the 'Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer', from offering the TLM publicly in their church, and in a move described as 'draconian', has ordered them to leave their monastic home. For more information, see previous recent posts.  Editor.

December 09, 2024

Media Correspondence - What is Said Vs What Is Printed - by Will

 For any interested enough and especially for any reading the articles printed by Stuff wanting an idea of the information they receive vs what they go ahead and print, I have copied the below correspondence. The first email is in reply to Stuff journalist Sinead Gill. Her questions are numbered, lettered, and in italics.

Emails begin below:

Hi Sinead, 

 Always interesting to hear from you! 

 Before responding to the points I'll again point out the frustration of dealing with the opinions of anonymous people regarding our situation. It's hard to see the benefit of using news media as the middle-man in this "conflict", which leads me to believe it is being done intentionally to air grievances that cannot be satisfied through any valid channel--i.e criminal or canonical. It would, as always, be helpful to be privy to specific claims or complaints so they can be scrutinised. 

 Moving on. 

 a) Former members say this recent blog post, on the a site managed by Fr Michael, illustrates how community members have been led to believe FSSR's way is the only valid form of mass. A former FSSR priest, who still gives mass in TLM, believes this is a means to keep people loyal to the Sons and scare them from attending other mass.

 

I reject that Fr. Michael has done anything like this or believes that the FSSR is the only offerer of valid Mass. This is factually false and no one at the Oratory believes this. The Mass in the Extraordinary Form is sought out by devout Catholics for many different reasons. I can speak confidently for my own family and many others on this matter. To give a couple of examples, one family attend TLM because of the clear Graces they receive from doing so. Another family attend because the Novus Ordo was "destroying their faith." The list goes on and on. Hypothetically, if the Sons were removed from New Zealand, we would engage the SSPX to come down and fill their space so we can continue to celebrate The Holy Traditional Latin Mass. 

 

           b) A former member says FSSR leadership is too involved in the personal lives of members and has too much control - multiple former members and the parent of a person in your community believe people have been "brainwashed" and believe anything Fr Michael/leadership tells them

 

This is a mind-boggling statement. If I were to tell you, Sinead, that I think you are too involved in the personal life of a friend of yours, how would you react to that? You would rightly tell me it was none of my business to whom you were inviting into your home and spending your time with. Let these people worry about their own families, social lives, and brains. It must be noted that any involvement in the personal lives of the congregation with The Sons happens under invitation only. The Sons do not request or demand they be invited over for dinners or other social events. There is no intrusion but only the charity and joy of receiving them. 

 

  2. a) Former members and a current priest who follows TLM believes it is wrong and  disingenuous for the Sons to be holding regular mass, despite the Bishop's orders, and saying it is OK because it is being described as private.

 

This is their opinion. According to the Canon Law we are right. According to the Bishop of Dunedin, and as he has advised at least one enquiring young-gentleman, The Sons' Mass is valid. We wish to remain objective. +Gielen has not the right to stop the Mass in the manner he is attempting. 

 

       b) They say FSSR bringing in visiting priest without permission but saying they don't need permission - when the Catholic Church of Aotearoa have safeguarding rules - is an example of FSSR not respecting authority or following rules.

 

Again, Canon Law says differently; Priests do not need to seek permission to say Mass. This is a fact. The Catholic Church of New Zealand know and understand that we have our safeguarding in place and that it is strictly adhered to. It would be disingenuous of them to say otherwise

 c) They believe that Fr Michael is "a law unto himself" and "no one can stop him." 

 

What on earth does this imply?!? Law unto himself in what regard? When, what, who, how? No one can stop him from doing what exactly? On two separate occasions, The Sons have offered to leave the diocese and both times their offer was rejected. Does this sound like the actions of individuals who are "laws unto themselves"? If they wanted to "stop" Fr. Michael they've had ample opportunity. Instead his presence has been both requested and required.

 

 d) They describe Fr Michael as "domineering" and theatrical, choosing to preach things that are scary, "extreme"/ "fire and brimstone".

 

Are we on trial now for the personal style of sermons given by Fr. Michael? I can tell you, I don't think I have missed a sermon by Fr. Michael in the last four-or-so years and they are few and far between. It may surprise these individuals that the Christian faith deals with matters such as life and death, Heaven and Hell. Matters of the soul. These are all grave matters--shall we recommend to Fr. Michael that it is only sunshine and rainbows on the pulpit from henceforth? We have a very good balance of sermons/reflections typically from 4 different priests who each carry their own style and deliveries. They are all a joy to listen to.

 

3. a) One former member showed me an email from early 2022 from Fr Anthony Mary, who warned people against attending a private mass by an  unauthorised priest. In it, Fr Anthony said it was a "source of division, which is from the depths of hell" and the former member believes this is hypocritical when FSSR are holding what they call private mass themselves. They ask why this is any different.

 

Ah the infamous email. I think Fr. Anthony has well and truly had his penance for this one. The priest in question had no standing in the Church whatsoever; he was a breakaway from the SSPX. The FSSR and many other orders are in good standing with The Church and in full and undisputed unity with The Church. This is the basis of Fr. Anthony's warning and that is why it is different.

 

 4. a) A representative of the Anglican Church, which owned the Ohoka church FSSR recently bought, said at no point in the dealing was the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer mentioned. They believed they were selling it to a trust called "friends of St Albans". Why was FSSR/your lawyer not forthcoming about this?

 

It had been discussed in some depth between members of the congregation, our need for a church or other building to accommodate our growing community. It is, in my opinion, completely inappropriate that a congregation our size should have to, every holiday season, go hunting to borrow another church in the diocese, or school hall, or rural town-hall to celebrate our Mass. We don't all fit at the Oratory during these times you see. Given +Gielen's hostility toward TLM and The Sons, and him being in somewhat "cahoots" with the Anglicans, and his already having blocked a purchase of a church down in Timaru some time ago, we thought it wise to secure a purchase under a trust instead. Despite all this I am told the Anglicans did in some capacity understand the purchase involved The Sons. I don't know what motivates them to say otherwise after the fact.

 

5. a) Liz Gregory of the Gloriavale Leavers Trust is concerned there are parallels between the FSSR community and Gloriavale. In her support of ex-FSSR members, she is concerned members were led to believe they will go to hell if they don't stay loyal to FSSR/follow their rules. She said the group has the markers of a "cult"/"high control" group, in that there is a charismatic leader, people are isolated from outside networks (rely heavily on community and spiritual leaders to meet their needs, making it feel near impossible to leave, she said) and pitted against each other (referencing how some ex-members have faced accusations of lying or having personal vendetta for challenging the leadership and believing people who say they experienced abuse).

 

As I have stated above in one of the first points, we are here for 'The Latin Mass' (TLM.).  TLM is the centre of our lives--not The Sons. Gloriavale is a Hutterite style group that incorporates entire families living, working, and educating in common. Members of Gloriavale, as I believe, sign documents of obedience. We are none of these things and no such thing has happened where people are advised they will go to hell if "they don't stay loyal to FSSR/follow their rules." This is absolutely ridiculous. None of the members of The Sons would say that the FSSR is the only way to Heaven, not only is it a factually false statement, it calls to question the integrity of whomever made the statement! Are they even Catholic? Do they understand all the Eastern Rites and other valid orders and forms of the Mass? There is no cult. There is no control. What are the examples of this? The only instruction I have personally been given is that it is my duty as a Catholic to fulfil my Sunday and Holy day obligations--one will receive the same advice from any Catholic priest around the world.

 Is it a negative thing to have support from a community of people who are close to you? No one is being pitted against anyone, in fact it remains that these accusers are still largely anonymous! How can we be pitted against those we do not know? How can we have personal vendettas when we don't know who has made accusations!? People come and go from the community constantly, I see new and old faces regularly, people come and go as they please which is their right. 

 

b) An academic with no involvement in advocacy says people should feel alarmed about FSSR, based on what she has read about the group. Her description of a "high demand" religious community (she does not like the word cult) aligns with Gregory's description of FSSR.

 Remember no charge has been brought, no accusation levelled. What she has read about "the group" are lies, embellishments, rumours, and hearsay. Same applies to the point/woman directly above. So basically an academic and an ex-cultist are alarmed about falsehoods. Good on them and all the best with their careers. 

 

 6. a) A former priest of FSSR believes that Fr Michael liked having control over what people did, even if at the time the temporary rules seemed small and on a whim. He gave an example of a short period of time where members of the order had to walk around with large crosses on their belt weighing about 3 pounds.

 

No idea what is being spoken of here but remember that Fr. Michael is the elected Superior General of a religious order. His entire job is to govern, whether he likes it or not. I am not privy to the lives, inner workings/structures, or disciplines of the various religious living around the globe. Seems a small and strange detail. The phrase, "scraping at the bottom of the barrel" rings a bell. [Update in the morning], one of our monks has told me he was present wearing his own cross on this occasion and that it didn't weigh 3-pounds as claimed. It was worn for three-hours in memory of our Lord's passion probably some time in 1992...32 years ago. 

 b) Re: dislike of authority, he gave an example of when the order was living in France in the 90s. He said Fr Michael was angry that the authorities would not let them swim in a stream in Lourdes, significant to St Bernadette, and out of anger instructed people to strip off their habits and swim in a different river, which he felt was just public indecency.

 Literally laughed out loud at this. So Fr. Michael hates authority because one time, 30-years-ago he couldn't swim in a stream? Very good. 

 

c & d) He said prior to the reconciliation, Fr Michael said the Pope wasn't valid. What is Fr Michael's view of the validity of the current Pope?

In his opinion he said this clash between Fr Michael/the Sons and the church was inevitable, and expects that Fr Michael will split from the church before agreeing for the Sons to leave the diocese.

 

I don't think any of this is relevant to the current situation and is just injected to attempt to drum up further conflict--this is just his opinion. I will say however that reconciliation would not have been possible if one was denying the validity of the Pope. 

 

To finish I will attach in a separate email a document from Fr. Michael to +Gielen. In this document, and for the third (?) time, Fr. Michael offers to one of his superiors, +G,  to leave the diocese. Though this time with the caveat that the faithful here in Christchurch be properly administered to once The Sons have left. Something we greatly appreciate as we are dealing with a bishop who clearly doesn't care for our needs. Again, this was rejected but clearly shows Fr. Michael's acknowledgement of authority. 

 Email 2:

' Thank you for this response Will. I just came across old press releases - dated July and August 2023 - from the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) which includes some specific wording on what the allegations were. These were published online and largely are allegations I've seen reported by media already, so I believe they were put to Fr Michael/the Sons at the time, but just in case there is something new to these allegations you'd like to comment on please let me know today. Linked them below.'

 

That in 2021 SNAP "received complaints of prolonged exorcisms and religious confessions involving sexual deviancy".

 A separate press release: "The allegations involved children being told they were possessed by Satan, having lengthy exorcisms performed on them without prior medical examination, priests’ sex-testing children, sexualisation a penitent disclosure in confession, and isolation of parents from their children."

 Response:

 Hi Sinead, 

 'These were the accusations that formed the basis of Paddy Gower’s hit-piece. These have already been responded to many, many times and have been thoroughly rejected by us, the police, and the former Bishop of Christchurch.' 

 Kind regards,

Will.

 December 09, 2024