It has been suggested both here in the comment section, as well as to me privately, that the real issue with Fisher More has to do with the way in which the content and impact of Vatican II is treated at the college.
Whether that means via curriculum, or simply the general attitude of the faculty, is unclear.
Blog for Dallas Area Catholics, for instance, has suggested that the problem concerns college president Michael King, who is allegedly “taking an increasingly severe stand regarding the Council and the changes that have occurred in the Church in the past 50 years.” (I resemble that comment.)
Whether or not this is all or part of the problem, I don’t know, but it certainly rings true.
It’s important to realize that the non-negotiable Charter of Newchurch is the text of Vatican Council II; ambiguities, misrepresentations and all of the confusion that comes along with it. It’s their version, or better stated, perversion, of the Oath Against Modernism.
Those who refuse in any way the required lockstep acceptance of the whole kit and kabboodle all but invite ecclesial sanction, even to the point of jeopardizing one’s claim to “full communion,” unless, of course, one happens to be a heretic in Catholic clothing, in which case one has all the qualifications necessary to be a card carrying New Evangelist.
This just so happens to be the primary reason the Society of St. Pius X is on the outside looking in, juridically speaking, as summed up well by Bishop Fellay:
“So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I wouldn’t sign such a statement for the simple reason that it’s simply not true, or as His Excellency said, “that’s not the reality.” Much of the conciliar text is indeed an integral part of tradition, but some of it isn’t, and the utter failure of the post-conciliar popes to clearly distinguish between the two, condemning the latter as a danger to the faith, is precisely why the Church in her visible structures is crumbling at our feet this very day.
As for the suggestion that Mr. King and some of the parents and faculty at Fisher More are having trouble getting along, that’s a pity, but since when does the Church consider withholding access to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from Catholics who are under no canonical penalties a disciplinary tool?
Oh, yea… since “crypto-lefebvrean tendencies” and the Pope of the People came along.