As regular readers of this space can attest, rarely do I offer quotes from the (sometimes many) messages I receive in response to my articles. Even more rarely do I feel moved (if ever, I really don’t recall) to post entire reader emails.
That trend isn’t likely to change in any meaningful way moving forward, but today I would like to share in its entirety an email that I received in response to my last post, What is Bishop Sanborn so afraid of?
This letter, as you will see, offers firsthand testimony that seems to support, in addition to other things, what was stated at the conclusion to the above mentioned article:
When those who posture as if they are in full and exclusive possession of the truth surrounding the current crisis in the papacy refuse to enter into good faith discussions with sincere persons who hold opposing views, something is dreadfully wrong.
Yes, it appears that something is dreadfully wrong.
It seems to me that there is a troubling trend underway whereby certain Thesis holders – not all, but some of the more vocal among them – are adopting a gnostic attitude, one that is spreading from the top of the RCI on down to the people in the pews, some of whom are behaving as if they alone posses a special, and eminently important, knowledge that is only made fully available to a select few.
To be more precise, it’s not so much a manifestation of the meme, If you know, you know, rather, it’s more like:
If you have been blessed with the rare gift of a superior intellect and apply it to intense theological study, you too can know. Otherwise, trust me bro.
Just how common this attitude is I do not know, but if the letter below is to be believed (and I see no reason whatsoever to dismiss it) then one thing is certain, it is a rotten fruit that testifies to the nature of the tree that bore it.
And now, without further delay, the letter:
In your recent post, “What is Bishop Sanborn so afraid of?” you said:
The implication that those who don’t “get it” lack the theological chops to digest the deep insights that make the Thesis irrefutable won’t fly with this group. This, incidentally, is precisely the sort of attitude that I and others have encountered (not from Bishop Sanborn, by the way) when seeking answers to our own reasonable questions.
I can attest to that. I have a friend who told me that if I don’t understand the Thesis then I haven’t studied enough Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy.
This is coming from a guy who was my closest friend for years, for whose two sons I am the godfather, who journeyed with me from indult Mass to SSPX to the sedevacantist chapel we attend now.
A few weeks ago he declared our conversation about the Thesis over. I haven’t heard from him since, or even seen him at our CMRI-affiliated chapel for Sunday Mass. I do know that he attends Mass when the RCI mission goes to his town once a month, but I’m not sure what he’s doing on other Sundays. Since Bp. Sanborn has publicly said that he cannot recommend anyone attend a CMRI chapel, perhaps my friend is taking that advice seriously now.
I’ve known about the Thesis for years, but never really looked into it. I thought it was more of an opinion, a possible explanation for the state of the Church. But when Bp. Roy put out his sermon and interviews a few months ago, I started really looking at the details of the Thesis, and like you found them completely illogical and untenable.
But for the RCI it is not an opinion, despite their occasional claims that it is. For one, Bp. Sanborn will not ordain a seminarian who does not believe in the Thesis. But I also have this very telling anecdote:
My friend, mentioned above, called me one day and asked if I could write him a letter of recommendation. Upon inquiring what the letter was for, he told me that Stephen Heiner was starting a men’s group for like-minded Catholics to support each other, network, etc. A little more questioning revealed that belief in the Thesis was a requirement for membership in this Catholic men’s group.
I was a little indignant.
Were there not plenty of good traditional Catholic men out there worthy of participating in this network of mutual support, who did not believe in the Thesis?
If the goal was connection with these like-minded men striving for virtue, then why cut a significant portion of them out simply for having a different opinion on the crisis? And why would I write my friend a letter of recommendation for a group that I was unqualified to join myself?
This whole “Thesis” thing is very problematic.
God bless you, Louie.
Having taken into consideration the content of this letter, it occurs to me that the gnostic attitude under discussion, if not brought to heel, is likely to give rise to something perhaps worse, namely, the characteristics of a cult.
