Fr. Vanderputten’s letter began by stating that the Superior General had rejected the canonical solution proposed by Rome.

This statement is untrue. As the first proposal was an imprecise draft, it was impossible to "accept it orally". Additional details were required before this could be done. The Superior General has always said, and still maintains, that it could be an acceptable structure. However, before accepting such a proposal, other areas of concern have to be clarified: namely, doctrinal questions and what really and precisely is Rome’s attitude towards traditional Catholics.

Contrary to what Fr. Vanderputten asserts, Rome has not allowed the Society of Saint Pius X to criticize modernist changes within the Church. One example is its refusal to allow us to say that the New Mass is bad. Cardinal Castrillon stated: "There will be no agreement with the Society as long as it claims that the New Mass is evil". He furthermore explained why he felt obliged to intervene against the former superiors of the Fraternity of Saint Peter. It was due to the fact that they wanted to put in writing their unwillingness to celebrate the New Mass.

The Superior General did not at any time forbid Fr. Vanderputten’s spiritual advisor from contacting him any more. However, I did request that he cease Fr. Vanderputten’s spiritual direction, for the following reason. For months Fr. Vanderputten had secretly prepared to leave the Society with this priest (and a third priest) and to establish his own new project. After having criticized our school system severely and unjustly, they pretended that they could do better. Hence they planned together, behind our backs, the project of founding a school, and for this purpose contacted parents, teachers and priests in total disobedience and secrecy.

Fr. Vanderputten pretended that he would have been refused a leave of absence. Suffice it to say that I invited Fr. Vanderputten to go to the French Benedictine Abbey in Bellaigues and to stay there to have the time to reflect and pray.

The following remarks concern the way in which Fr. Vanderputten left the Society of Saint Pius X:

• As of the month of June, the Superior General had the proof that Fr. Vanderputten was claiming openly that he was not bound by his perpetual engagement in the Society (his spiritual advisor told him so) and that he was about to leave the Society (in order to implement his school project).

• It was at the beginning of July that Fr. Vanderputten received the documents about the discussions between Rome and the Society, that is after he had already stated that he would leave the Society. He nevertheless wants everybody now to believe that the discussions with Rome are the cause of his separation from the Society.

• The fax sent to Fr. Vanderputten on July 21 describes his dishonest and disloyal behavior, secretly working behind our backs as he was doing.

• The description of his case as an urgent one refers to canon 653 (CIC 1917) which mentions the possibility of dismissing a member in urgent cases, where there is grave danger of scandal or grave danger for the community, as was the case here. The fax did not intend to be a formal canonical text, but to make Fr. Vanderputten take responsibility for his behavior. At any rate, was Fr. Vanderputten’s justification of his right to leave us canonical? And was the secret setting up of a school project, canonical?

Fr. Vanderputten accuses the Society of refusing a legitimate request from a legitimate authority, namely "To work within the Church with the exclusive celebration of the Tridentine rite to help renew the Church." In response the following must be said:

• We have never left the Church, and we work already within the Church, for a true renewal of the Church. This has always been our position. Where is our so-called disobedience? Fr. Vanderputten falsifies the situation, the present status of affairs, by suddenly forgetting the gravity of the crisis of the Church, so as to only look at one small part of it.

• Does Fr. Vanderputten agree with the day of prayer in Assisi, with the Pope’s visit to the Mosque in Damascus, to the Synagogue in Rome, to the Sacred Forest of Togo, and with the Pope’s reception of the Tilak sign in India? Do these acts renew the Church?

Fr. Vanderputten states that "Bishop Fellay rejected the deal because a large segment of the SSPX in Europe is sedevacantist."  It must first be stated that the Superior General did not at any time make such a statement, and secondly that it is totally false. It is not true that a large number of Society priests are sedevacantist, nor is it true that the Superior General rejected the proposal, and it would certainly not have been for this reason if he had.

The main reason for Fr. Vanderputten’s dismissal, as described above, was not because of contacts with the enemies, Cardinal Ratzinger et al. Nevertheless, the fact that he entered secretly in contact with a Roman Cardinal at the same time as his Superiors were in very tough and difficult discussion with Rome is certainly considered as a betrayal.

Please pray for the eternal salvation of Fr. Vanderputten’s soul, endangered by his disloyalty and disobedience.

Bernard Fellay +
Superior General