BISHOP WILLIAMSON CONFERENCES- conference n°4
I said to you we were coming up to a precious and very important passage of the Archbishop’s conference to his priests half a year before he died, and we’re coming on to kind of the central passage. This is the problem of problems. He’s been talking about this huge fight, and he says that the fight we’re in today is exactly the same fight that was in the 19th century, especially. It’s just the liberal, modern world against the Catholic Church, against the Catholic faith.
“We have chosen to be counter-revolutionary, to stay with the Syllabus, to be against the modern errors, to stay with Catholic Truth, to defend Catholic Truth. We are right.” That’s a very important thing to realise. I can very well say, “I’m a jerk. I’m a nobody. I’m a sinner. Forget me,” but I’m not allowed to say to people, “Forget the Truth.” If I am in the Truth I cannot pretend that I’m not because I would be a liar like the Pharisees, as Our Lord says. A Catholic who’s got the Faith does know that he’s in the Truth, and he knows that it’s a gift of God. He knows it’s not his own glory. It’s not his own personal possession. It’s simply that God has given him this gift and he may not betray it.
“We are right,” says the Archbishop, and there’s not a trace of pride when he says that. It’s a trace of humility – “This is a great truth to which I am submitting. It’s above me. It’s beyond me. It’s much higher than me.” It’s not pride there.
Vatican II profoundly wrong – “This fight between the Church and the liberals and Modernists is a fight over Vatican II. It is as simple as that, and the consequences are far-reaching.”
The disease is now reaching inside the Society, which is typical for the modern world. The modern world surrounds us all, the modern world seeps into us all, and so it’s seeped into the Society, and instead of having the trouble outside, exactly the same problem is now inside the Society.
“The more one analyses the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyses their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realises that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes – ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism – but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy on subjectivism.”
We’re back to Pascendi. Subjectivism – the subject cannot now the object, therefore all truth is inside the subject because no objective truth is knowable. That’s Immanuel Kent. I can’t even know that that’s a piano there. I think it is. I can behave as though it is. I can sit down as though it is. I can play it as though it is, but I still don’t know that it’s a piano. It’s sick, it’s crazy, but that’s modern philosophy. That liberates me from the object. That is the supreme liberty. I am not even obliged to say that that is a wall and that that is a door. I am free. If I want to say that that’s a door and that’s a wall, I can do so. That’s modern philosophy. It’s crazy, it’s sick, but that’s what it is, and that’s the problem that’s got inside the Church.
The Archbishop goes on – “A book just published by a German theologian, Johannes Dõrmann, is most instructive. It shows how the Pope’s thinking, especially in a retreat he preached at the Vatican in 1976, is subjectivist from start to finish.” John Paul II’s thinking is subjectivist. He’s Kantian. He doesn’t know the object, so all religion comes from inside, and therefore religion is chocolate. It’s got to be chocolate. It’s got to feel good from inside. It’s a feel-good religion. He says John Paul II “disguised to make it look like the old religion but it’s a completely new religion.” Instead of being entirely objective, it’s completely subjective. “And when afterwards,” says the Archbishop, “one reads the speeches of John Paul II, one realises that this indeed is his thinking.”
The Archbishop had more time to read at the end of his life when he wasn’t running all over the world confirming and ordaining. He was reading Emmanuel Barbier, he was reading Johannes Dõrmann, and his eyes were, in a sense, opening. Instinctively the Archbishop had got it right when he fought all these wretched Modernists, and it was a heroic fight. What this suggests is that he had not put it all together in his mind until he read these books at the end, read Dõrmann and Barbier. Then he saw something that he hadn’t so clearly seen before. The Archbishop had always seen the importance of the Syllabus and the importance of Pascendi. He had not yet seen just how in-depth crazy Vatican II and John Paul II were, but now he sees it.
He says, “When afterwards one reads John Paul II’s speeches, one realises that this indeed is his thinking.” The Archbishop has undoubtedly read speeches of John Paul II, but, like most of us, he couldn’t make sense of it. It’s very difficult to read. It’s gibberish. It’s not clear at all.
I went twice to meet Johannes Dõrmann in Germany. He did say the old Mass. He was retired. He was a real German Catholic university theologian of the best kind, because he was still on the Truth, and when Assisi happened in 1986, Dõrmann said, “Hey, what’s going on? This is nuts.” Dõrmann says that he then said to himself, “I’ve got to find out what this man is about.” So Dõrmann set himself a huge penance to read all of the books and all of the sermons and every printed word of John Paul II. Now that’s a penance, because it’s rivers of rivers of encyclical. They just go on for ever, and it’s all gibberish, but Dõrmann says, “I’ve got to work out what this guy is up to. This is crazy - Assisi.” The Archbishop had exactly the same reaction. The Archbishop reacted violently to Assisi, and Dõrmann reacted quietly but very substantially to Assisi. So Dõrmann set about reading and studying all the writings and speeches and sermons of John Paul II. Being a theologian and being smart and having undoubtedly some perseverance, because he must have stuck to it, he stuck to it until he deciphered John Paul II, and what he deciphered was a raving Modernist. In other words, John Paul II manages to keep the appearances, and expressions stay just inside of orthodoxy. It’s a great deal of ambiguity. You can interpret the things John Paul II says in an ordinary Catholic sense, but you look at it, you study it carefully and you see what’s behind it and you see, in fact, it’s going in a completely different direction. It’s going in the direction of John Paul II travelling all over the world, visiting all of these various religions, going into the middle of the jungle and shaking hands with the voodoo king, or getting himself stuck with an Indian Hindu pagan tilak on the forehead, and this is nuts. Now we’ve had Benedict XVI going into the mosque and praying in the Mohammedan way. I don't know what the Mohammedan way of praying is, but he went into the mosque and he prayed the Mohammedan way. Do the Mohammedans believe in Jesus Christ or not? Of course they don’t. They think he’s a prophet but they certainly don’t believe that He’s God. What are you doing there? You’re encouraging all Catholics to think that Mohammedanism is not all that bad. It’s an incredible scandal, but we’ve had so much of these scandals that it just doesn’t register any more.
So Dõrmann deciphers John Paul II and writes four books, and the first of these little books, which is the slimmest and the easiest, is like an introduction to the next three. The next three deal with the big encyclicals of John Paul II, on the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. There are three encyclicals - Redemptor Hominis, Dominum et Vivifacantem and Dives in Misericordia. Dõrmann’s books are difficult to read, but he does slowly and methodically take to pieces and show the coherent ideas behind the gibberish. The coherent ideas are, for instance, that all men are saved, that all men are united to Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ didn’t save us by His Passion but by His Incarnation, and the fact that Jesus Christ united Himself to human nature means that all of us are united with Jesus Christ, whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not, and therefore all of us are saved, and the only advantage of Catholicism is that we know better how saved we are than the others do. So you travel all over the world to tell everybody that they’re good guys - most people like being told that they’re good guys – and that they’re really saved. You don’t say, “You’re, all of you, really Christian” because they wouldn’t like that, but you do say, “You’re, all of you, good guys. You’ve got a nice religion. You mean well, don’t you, with Almighty God? We all really believe in the same God, don’t we?” Most people go along with that. It’s a bonanza for the voodoo king to have the big man in white come to him and honour him in the middle of the jungle. Wow, that’s high-powered magic. He’s not going to tell the Pope to get lost. “Come and give me more and more credit, please. You can visit me once a month if you like. If each time we shake hands we get a photo op, oh, marvellous.” It is the same with the others, the same with the Mohammedans. Instead of being despised by the Catholic religion, as they always have been, at last they’re respected and honoured by the head man of the Catholic religion.
I can’t imagine that the Jews enjoy playing along with the Pope, but since it helps to deceive the Pope, I’m sure even the Jews are happy to play along. I bet they don’t like it because the Pope is in the middle and not them, but still since it’s going to help to fool him, well, oh, play along, too. So all the religions play along, but they don’t change a little bit in their ideas. There’s no question of converting, and that’s the new religion - everybody’s OK and nobody needs to convert. That’s a popular message, and that’s why all of the religions of the world were at John Paul II’s funeral.
The Archbishop, after reading Dõrmann, has gone back to John Paul II, he’s read it, and he says, “By golly, that’s it. Yes, that’s it. Dõrmann has got it right. This is what this man thinks.” Prior to that the Archbishop probably never deciphered what John Paul II thinks. He understood what John Paul II did, and he castigated Assisi, together with Bishop de Castro Mayer, but he hadn’t understood what was behind it. Now he understands what’s behind it, and that’s what Dõrmann set out to discover. Dõrmann said, “What’s behind this? How can the Catholic Pope be doing these things? What’s he up to?” Then, sure enough, he found out what he’s up to.
“It might appear Catholic,” says the Archbishop, “but Catholic it is not.” In other words, the bottles still all have the labels in the pharmacy but the content is completely different. The appearances are maintained of Catholicism. The Pope expresses himself, like Benedict XVI, he expresses himself mostly in a way that you can still interpret as Catholic, but the spirit and the content and the direction and the drive are completely different and they’re not Catholic.
“No,” says the Archbishop, “the Pope’s notion of God, the Pope’s notion of Our Lord, comes up from the depths of consciousness.” My notion of God comes up from inside me. It’s subjective. It’s not the Lord God of Hosts making Mount Sinai smoke in front of the Israelites who are shaking. That’s really objective. Even miles away the Israelites were afraid because they could see the Lord God making the mountain dance and smoke. God is God. God can make the mountains dance when He wants. So that’s pretty objective. If the house starts falling down, I’m not going to say, “This is just my subjective impression.” I’m going to get out of that window as fast as I can. Reality has a way of getting back at me. Even I can wrap myself up in my subjective dreams, but I’m still not going to walk out in front of a lorry.
Materialism - there I take reality seriously. When it comes to designing an aeroplane I’m going to get it right. I’m not going to design an aeroplane wrong, because if I design an aeroplane wrong it’s going to crash. I choose to take the appearances seriously when it’s a question of things material, but when it’s a question of things spiritual then I am God, I think as I like, I say what commandments I’m going to obey, I say what dogmas I’m going to believe in. Why? Because spiritual is silly; material is serious – that’s modern man. We all adore scientists. He puts on a pair of spectacles, he appears in a white coat on television - everybody treats him like a priest. Science is the religion of modern man. Religion is all silly stuff for women and children.
The Archbishop says, “The Pope’s notion of God, the Pope’s notion of Our Lord, comes up from inside and not from any objective revelation from outside to which he adheres with his mind.” The truths of the Faith are revealed to us in Catholic teaching. The truth is that the Faith is revealed to us from outside. It blows my mind. How can I believe that God is substantially, truly and really present behind the appearances of a little bit of bread and a little bit of wine? How can I believe that? It’s nuts. My mind says that’s not scientific, no way, but what I say then if I have the Faith is, “I don’t understand. My mind can’t get it, but my mind submits because it’s revealed by God. Therefore it is true.” I believe it because it’s revealed by God. That’s it. That’s the Faith. So the mind submits to a truth coming to it from outside objectively. I’m told about transubstantiation by the Church. I’m taught about it.
Our Lord said, “This is My Body. This is My Blood. You will not have eternal life if you don’t eat My Body and drink My Blood.” This is nuts – no, I submit. The Faith, as St Paul says, is an obedience. I choose to submit my mind and to accept these truths coming from outside, which I would never dream of. I would never dream of the Lord God putting Himself inside bread and wine in order to give me food and drink. It’s so way beyond my little mind, I can’t imagine. But there it is - it’s true. I submit. I accept. That’s the Faith. It’s objective. It’s not subjective. What person would ever dream of God doing any such thing from inside his consciousness?
“John Paul II constructs the notion of God. He said recently in a document - it’s incredible – that the idea of the Trinity could only have arisen quite late because man’s interior psychology had to be capable of defining the Trinity. In other words, it’s men that fabricate the Trinity. What? The Archbishop says that that’s what John Paul II has written. Can this man have had the Catholic Faith? It’s difficult to believe it.
You can understand why sedevacantists are sedevacantists. I’m not. I never have been a sedevacantist, but I can understand them. I watch out because when the sedevacantists really get on a roll they end up sterilising themselves. They finish up by not even going to Mass. They don’t attend any Mass of any priest at all. It’s a dangerous, blind alley, but that is if it’s pushed to the extreme. It’s because of a real sort of agony - how can somebody be Pope who says that the Trinity could only be believed in later when men’s psychology had sufficiently evolved? How can that man be pope? I can understand the problem. Any of us should be able to understand the problem.
Inside the Society now, the scarecrow which is agitated in front of anybody to make them join in the idea of joining Rome is that – “If you don’t come with us, you’re a sedevacantist. Sedevacantism is the horror of horrors.” That’s the attitude inside the Society with these liberals. It’s unspeakable. It’s stupid, but that’s how the liberals work themselves up.
Hence the idea of the Trinity did not come from a revelation from outside, says the Archbishop, in John Paul II’s thinking. Of course it comes from outside. Who would dream up the complicated and difficult idea of a God three in one and one in three if it wasn’t revealed from outside? The Jews were monotheistic. They insisted on God being one, God being one, God being one. They’re quite right, so what Jew would ever have dreamt up the idea of God being three in one? It can only come from revelation. The Archbishop, quoting John Paul II, says, “The idea of the Trinity, according to John Paul II’s thinking, did not come from revelatory insight. It came from man’s consciousness inside.” My guts begin to rock and roll one Sunday evening when I’m feeling pious, and I’ve got this idea that God is three in one and one in three, and it comes from inside me – crazy, absolutely crazy. John Paul II is crazy.
So it welled up from inside man. It came from the depths of man’s consciousness - “Incredible,” says the Archbishop. Incredible, unbelievable, but it’s the reality. I can’t believe that somebody dreams that the Trinity comes up from inside, like a belch. It’s just nuts, but that’s these characters.
The Archbishop concludes, “It is a wholly different version of revelation, of faith, of philosophy.” It’s a totally different idea of Truth. It’s a totally different idea of how man relates to the world outside, of how he knows, how he thinks, how he relates. It all comes from inside - it’s pride. It’s putting man in the place of God. Everything came from inside God. All creation comes from God. It doesn’t come from us. It comes from God. But if I say everything comes from inside me, what am I doing? I’m making myself into God.
“It’s a total perversion,” says the Archbishop. “How are we going to get out of all this? I have no idea, but in any case it is a fact, and as this German theologian shows, who has, I believe, another two parts of his book to write on the Holy Father’s thought, it is truly frightening.”
Benedict XVI is basically the same, and these are the people in charge of the Church, and this is the mentality now threatening to take over the SSPX. Help, help! This is the mentality that’s now eating away inside the SSPX - and that’s the modern world. The whole modern world is into this nonsense. The planes fly because they take reality seriously when it comes to material things. Modern man is brilliant at designing aeroplanes, no problem, but working out who God is, where God comes from, recognising God, thinking about God, life and man and eternity - forget it.
“They are no small errors. These are not little trifles. We are not dealing in trifles. We are into a line of philosophical thinking that goes back to Kant and Descartes, the whole line of modern philosophers who paved the way for the Revolution.” It’s the total modern world. Kant comes out of Protestantism. From Luther came Kant, and from Kant came the Modernists, and from all of them came Vatican II.
“Let me give you a few relatively recent quotations, for example, on ecumenism. In Osservatore Romano, June 2nd 1989, when the Pope is in Norway - ‘My visit to the Scandinavian countries is a confirmation of the Catholic Church’s interest in the work of ecumenism, which is to promote unity amongst all Christians. 25 years ago the Second Vatican Council insisted clearly on the urgency of this challenge to the Church. My predecessors pursued this objective with persevering attention, with the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is the divine source and guarantee of the ecumenical movement.’” He’s making God back the nonsense, and these people are really off the wall. “‘Since the beginning of my pontificate I have made ecumenism the priority of my pastoral concern.’”
It’s clear, says the Archbishop, that the man is off the wall, but, as he said earlier, it’s not even the biggies of Vatican II, which are religious liberty, collegiality and ecumenism. It’s something deeper and behind all of those. It’s this complete unhinging of the mind. It’s this complete reversal of object and subject. No longer does my mind revolve around the object. That’s a piano if I look at it that way, that way, that way. It is what it is and my mind turns around what it is. From now, according to modern philosophies, the piano turns around my mind, and if circulating around my mind it turns into a teddy bear then the piano is a teddy bear because it’s turning around my mind, and my mind makes the piano what it is, and if I make it into a teddy bear then it is a teddy bear. These people, they’re completely mad. Ecumenism, religious liberty and collegiality and all the errors of Vatican II, they’re just products of this complete revolution in the mind, this total destruction, this total insanity in the mind, and this insanity is all around us, and the insanity is now trying to work its way into the SSPX. This is the full depth of the problem. We’re not dealing with little errors. Pius X said that it’s the main sewer that joins together all heresies. It’s not a single heresy. If I say that God is four persons, that’s denying the Trinity but it’s not denying transubstantiation. It’s not denying this, that or the other. It’s a localised heresy, so to speak. The modern heresy is not localised. The modern heresy is the total dissolution of sane thinking, the inability to conceive sane thinking, and it’s all around us.
Let’s go 100 yards in that direction. We land in the house of, let’s say, a medical doctor. I don't know who he is, of course, I’m just inventing him, but the dear medical doctor, he drives every morning down to Bristol Hospital, he deals with patients, he’s got modern medicine, he dispenses modern medicine and so on, but if you get him on to the subject of religion, you get him on the subject of philosophy, and he’s going to come out with this garbage. He still takes reality seriously enough because it’s material. Medicine for human beings is at least significantly material because our bodies are material, and so they’ve got material medicines and material drugs to deal with it. They don’t know anything about the soul but they do have these tremendous variety of powerful drugs to deal with the body, and when they can’t deal with the soul they just give such a heavy drug to the body that the poor guy’s completely zonked, and therefore that’s all that modern medicine can do. But you get him off medicine, you get him into reality as a whole, he’s off the wall. This deep error is everywhere around us, and it’s seeping into us all the time.
I remember the Dominican sisters in Idaho, they arrived from France, and I used to know Sister Gabriel, who was in charge in the first years of the school. They arrived and they began a school with little girls. The Dominican way is that you begin with just the first lower two classes and then each year you add on a class, so that you don’t start the school with girls who are already corrupted with the modern ways, who are already miseducated and uneducatable. You start small and you slowly build up. So they started small and they started with relatively young girls, and I can remember the sister saying to me once, “We saw today in the break, the little children sitting on their haunches watching beetles on the ground.” The sister said, “This was a great triumph,” because these little girls are already into the virtual world, television, the internet, the unreal world of electronics, and to see the little girls actually watching a real-life object, and with their minds working on a real-life object instead of dreaming around in virtuality, this was a great step forward for the teaching sisters.
The sister said, “These little girls, they lie.” Truth is what they make it from one moment to the next. They’ve got no idea of the Eighth Commandment because they’ve got no idea of truth, and therefore they’ve got no idea of a lie. Whatever they take into their heads is just as true as what they don’t take into their heads. These are girls from relatively Traditional Catholic families that want the Dominicans to teach their girls. Well, the first thing that the Dominican sisters have to teach them is a sense of reality, and so it was a great step forward when these little girls were actually watching reality, instead of making themselves the centre of reality.
Children should not be called students. They’re not students. They’re children. They’re schoolchildren - schoolboys and schoolgirls until the age of 18. They should not be called students. Not even students at university should be called students because most students today at university are not studying at all. Whenever I hear somebody is at university I say to them, “What are you studying? What university are you at?” “Oh, I’m studying domestic science.” Well, if she’s studying domestic science, good for her, because there’s a chance that domestic science will have a little to do with home-keeping, which is what the poor girl should be learning in order how to become a good wife and a good mother and look after her husband, look after her children and raise the next generation. Otherwise if we don’t have girls raising the next generation, the Mohammedans are going to take over England in another ten, twenty, thirty or forty years, because the Mohammedans have children, and your marvellous, superior whites don’t have children, certainly not enough to keep England white or to keep England English, and that’s England’s fault. That’s entirely the fault of the English.
“Now when one reads the quantity of documents on ecumenism, and John Paul II makes speech after speech on ecumenism, because he received delegation after delegation from all religions, from all sects, and so the subject is always ecumenism, ecumenism, ecumenism, but he achieves nothing. The end result has been nothing, nothing at all, except, on the contrary, reassuring the non-Catholics in their errors without seeking to convert them and confirming them in their error” - what Isaias calls “putting a pillow under sin” – making them feel comfortable with their errors, on their way down to hell.
“The Church has made no progress, not the least progress by this ecumenism, so all that he says is a veritable mish-mash – ‘communion’, ‘join closer’, ‘desire of imminent perfect communion’, ‘hope of soon communing in the sacrament’, ‘in unity’ and so on. There’s no real progress. They cannot progress this way. It’s impossible.” Why can’t they? Because the Catholic Church is a Church of Truth. The Truth is essential to the Catholic Church. In front of Pilate, Our Lord says, “I came to tell the Truth, and those that are of the Truth hear Me.”
The Archbishop goes on to another case, from the Pope to Cardinal Casaroli, who was then Secretary of State - another real delinquent. He must be boiling in hell. From the Osservatore Romano February 1989, speaking to the United Nations Commission on the Rights of Man, and this is Casaroli speaking – “‘In responding with great pleasure to the invitation extended to me to come before you, and bringing to you the encouragement of the Holy See, I desire to spend a few moments, as all of you will understand, on one specific aspect of the basic liberty of thought and action in accordance with one’s conscience - religious liberty.’”
The Archbishop comments – “Such things coming from the mouth of a cardinal – ‘liberty of thought and action according to one’s conscience’, hence religious liberty.” The Archbishop was just blowing his mind at high churchmen saying such things.
Back to Casaroli – “‘John Paul II did not hesitate to state last year in a message to the World Day of Peace that religious liberty constitutes like a cornerstone in the edifice of the rights of man. The Catholic Church and Supreme Pastor, who has made of the rights of man one of the major themes of his preaching, has not failed to recall that in a world made by man and for man …’” The Archbishop interrupts – “These are Cardinal Casaroli’s own words – ‘a world made by man and for man.’”
The Cardinal goes on – “‘The whole organisation of society only has meaning insofar as it makes of the human dimension a central preoccupation.’” The Archbishop comments, “God? God? There’s no divine dimension in man? It’s appalling. It’s paganism.”
The Archbishop quotes Casaroli again – “‘Every man and all of man - that is the Holy See’s preoccupation; such, no doubt, is yours, also.’” The Church’s preoccupation is not man. The Church’s preoccupation is God, because God is what man is about. God is why we’re here, to get to heaven. The Church is preoccupied with God, not with man, and here’s this high churchman going in front of the United Nations, and saying, “Man, man, man, man, rights of man, democracy of man, liberty of man, equality of man.” The Archbishop says, “A churchman saying these things?” Because it’s no longer with the objective God. It’s the subjective man - I am God; I am what it’s all about; I am what I am all about. Untrue. God is what I am all about. You can see how this philosophy, which turns away from the object and turns inwards completely towards the subject, shuts out God. “God is a creation of my entrails, my guts. I produce God” - these people are just crazy.
“What can you do?” the Archbishop comments, “What can you do with people like that? What do we have in common with people like that? Nothing. It’s impossible.”
What do the SSPX have in common with these people, these poor people in Rome that have lost their minds, that have literally lost their minds? I think I quoted you one of the priests who was one of the four SSPX theologians that met with the Roman theologians. At the end of the meeting, I talked to him. He said, “They are mentally sick.” These four Roman theologians, these four high-ups in Roman Church, chosen to talk to the Society, their minds are just mush. The proof was that for eight times they met - four on one side of the table, four on the other, I guess, unless it was a round table and it was all nicey- nicey - and the four had eight occasion to listen for hours on end, to talk, to discuss, to think, to see what the Romans were thinking. At the end of it he says, “They’re mentally sick.” That’s it, and we want to deal with these mentally sick people, and we’re going to treat them as though they’re normal human beings, as though they’ve got something to give us?
They have the authority. That’s the problem – they have the authority. That’s what this SSPX priest said – “They are mentally sick but they have the authority.” So what can you do? What can you do with people like that? What do we have in common with people like that? “Nothing,” says the Archbishop, “It’s impossible.”
When the Archbishop made that decision to consecrate, his mind was clearing. His mind was more and more clearing. He reads Barbier, he reads Dõrmann, and he sees more and more clearly. The result was, from 1988 through to 2000, 12 years of tranquil unity and progress inside the SSPX, and the fruit was the Jubilee, a very successful Jubilee, 6,000 pilgrims from all over the world through the streets of Rome, processions through the streets of Rome, appearances in each of the basilicas, a great success, and then the Devil starts. From 1988 to 2000 the Romans used a stick - excommunicated, excommunicated, excommunicated. Through the streets of Rome, a whole crowd, tranquil and pious – “The stick isn’t working. Guys, we’d better change to the carrot – all kinds of nuts, six-course meals and embrace,” and it went from there. The switch from the stick to the carrot - another 12 years and the carrot, boy, has it worked. Oh, wow. “Oh, Monsignor Fellay, oh, come in, Your Excellency. Oh, sit down. What would you like - a coffee or would you like some arsenic? Oh, wonderful Monsignor Fellay, oh, we listen to you. Oh, how wise you are. Oh, tremendous. Do you know, we might be able to make a cardinal of you.” Another 12 years and the trick is almost played. That’s where we are. I’m giving you my opinion. I repeat, if you’d like Bishop Fellay to come in here and sit down and give you his opinion, absolutely welcome, so to speak, and if you want to think that he’s more right than I am, absolutely welcome. Make up your own minds.
END OF CONFERENCE