From Persecution to Identity Theft

Admin

Administrator
INCREDIBLE! THE NEO-SSPX: FROM PERSECUTION TO IDENTITY THEFT SOURCE

Original article in French: “Peut-on se fier à M. l’abbé Waillez ? - Can we trust Fr. Waillez ?»: La Sapinière – LaSapiniere.info

[NOTE TO THE ENGLISH SPEAKING READERS: In 2012 three SSPX priests (Frs. Pinaud, Rioult and Salenave) opened anonymously the website “Anti-Modernisme” in order to alert priests and faithful about the sell-out Bp. Fellay was preparing with Modernist Rome. The neo-SSPX General House was very angry about it, so they decided to employ ANY MEANS in order to discover the identity of these courageous priests. They requested the “services” of the District Superior of Belgium, Fr. Wailliez, who is very skilled with computers. Thus, Fr. Wailliez, with the help of Fr. Thouvenot, the Secretary General of the neo-SSPX, STOLE THE IDENTITY of Fr. Rioult’s email account, which is not only a mortal sin, but also a crime punishable by the French Penal Code with one year imprisonment and a fine of 15,000 euros!]

Fr. Benoît Wailliez was appointed superior of the District of Belgium by Bishop Fellay. Thus Fr. Wailliez is a major superior of the Society of Saint Pius X. Therefore, he is member of the General Chapter, he can elect the Superior General and even can be elected to this post. The question that arises here is whether we can trust him doctrinally and humanly speaking. Doctrinally speaking. Fr. Wailliez became known in 2012 by posting the first video on Gloria.tv to prepare the public opinion for an agreement with the Conciliar Rome (http://fr.gloria.tv/ ? media = 289215). It was his sermon (May 13, 2012) praising Bishop Fellay, his “graces of state,” and Benedict XVI (who "beatified" John Paul II and convoked Assisi III). But this is only the public face of Fr. Wailliez, which is his side of Dr. Jekyll. For the District Superior of Belgium also has a secret dark side, a side of Mr. Hyde. Humanly speaking. Father Waillez, if one believes Fr. Vincent Quilton, believes that anything is permitted to defend his (bad) cause and to silence his confreres who make obstacle to the submission of the Society to the conciliar authorities. Will this “zeal” earn him protection and gratitude for ever from Bishop Fellay? The future will tell us. But it is quite surprising to discover in him mafia behaviors, though one expects to find civilized manners.

Let’s leave now Fr. Vincent Quilton, professor of Moral Theology and Canon Law at the seminary of Ecône, to unveil for us the hidden actions of Fr. Waillez.

[Exposition of Fr Quilton, assistant at the SSPX trial of Frs. Salenave , Pinaud and Rioult]

"Narration of the facts happened in the case of the traps set by email to Fathers Pinaud and Rioult: During the publication by
and on the Internet of several anonymous letters addressed "To our fellow priests," several priests outraged by this subversive manner and the more and more daring aspect of these actions, sought to identify the culprits. Fr. Wailliez had serious suspicions about some confreres: Fathers Salenave, Pinaud and Rioult. Father Wailliez created a fictitious address (nicolas_pinaud@yahoo.fr ) pretending to be Fr. Pinaud and used it between 3 and 5 times to trap his confreres and lay people involved in the rebellion. Father Rioult was the first target ... and the first one to bite the bait and to come into the open. Bp. Williamson was also trapped and sent to him, by mistake and in exclusivity, a document which he wanted to publish as a “bomb.” The Web site “La Sapinière” sent its site access codes (but the General House [GH] decided not to use them).

At the same time, Father Wailliez did a search on the web about Father Rioult. He found a web page (http://pastebin.com/CVYTj2nH) which gave the address of Professor Faurisson, which contained the email addresses of Fr. Rioult (charles.corday@yahoo.fr), identifying himself by his real name.
By going to the Yahoo! page, Father Wailliez followed the procedure for a forgotten password. And then, two questions were asked: 1) the name of Fr. Rioult’s father, which a short research on the White Pages gave him the information without difficulty. 2) And then, it was asked “the name of his preferred professor.” After some hesitation, and assisted by Fr. Thouvenot [the Secretary General], the word “Faurisson” allowed him easily to access into the mailbox, much like the keys of a safe, poorly hidden to find them around. (Yahoo! demanded to create a new password immediately). Having access and total control of the mailbox, Fr. Wailliez acceded to all documents received and sent by Fr. Rioult still present on the server. He then left to the General House the use of all the material available.

The description of all the facts, as presented by Frs. Rioult and Pinaud in La Sapinière – LaSapiniere.infois correct. The moral question is raised of course from the beginning of these actions, and has not been elucidated in the name of the false principle "the end justifies the means" ... which are used by the “rebels”! There is no absolute right to privacy, in an ecclesiastical institution. (sic!) From the moment a serious and grave reason is there, any superior can open the
of anyone, visit the rooms, monitor phone calls and control the personal belongings (such as a computer). In this case, it should be noted: 1) we were dealing with an obvious damage [of the rebel priests] to the Society and which was on the point of expanding significantly; and 2) only a few seriously suspected priests have suffered from this monitoring, and in a manner proportionate to the offense (it was not looked into private things or related to spiritual direction, etc.). 3) Fr. Wailliez undertook all steps in total agreement with the General House. (sic!)" [End of quote]

COMMENTS: The arguments of Fr. Quilton, when is trying to justify the immoral behavior of Fr. Walliez and the neo-SSPX General House, are false for several reasons:

1) “The end does not justify the means”;
2) The supposed “right” of the neo-SSPX superiors to open the private
of its members is nowhere mentioned in the Statutes of the SSPX;
3) If, in any event, a religious superior open the private
of someone, the former mentions it openly to the latter before or after doing it, which was not here the case; and in any case, Fr. Walliez was not the superior of Fr. Rioult;
4) The manner used by Fr. Wailliez and the General House was immoral, because from the beginning a grave lie was used (when they posed as being “Fr. Pinaud”) and especially because they stole the identity of a priest, which is a crime severely punishable by the Law in all civilized countries;
5) Consequently, it is immoral for the superiors of the neo-SSPX to use the information they fraudulently obtained from Fr. Rioult’s email account, as they intend to do in the “canonical trial” of Fr. Pinaud (Fr. Rioult refused to be judged by a “kangaroo court,” by an unfair “trial”);
6) Finally, the “canonical trial” of the “rebel” priests the neo-SSPX superiors are planning to do is totally illegal, because they do not have any canonical authority, by the fact the SSPX does not exist canonically, as Bp. Fellay himself agrees on it;
7) These neo-SSPX methods are the same used in a totalitarian regime, like in Communist countries!
 
Top