Following is the letter Mr. Howard Walsh (of Keep the Faith) wrote to the members of his chapel (Our Lady of Fatima - OLFC) at the time it was being considered whether to bring in the Society of St. Pius the Tenth or the Fraternity of St. Peter to service their chapel, Our Lady of Fatima. Comments follow the letter.

February 5, 1994

St. Agatha

Fellow Parishioners:

Since my name has come up in the debate over whether the Chapel should be served by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter or the Society of Saint Pius X, I feel obliged to give you the benefit of the information I have collected in correspondence with some of the leaders of the traditional Roman Catholic movement who have been working with Keep the Faith over the years.

First, though, I'd like to set the record straight. Keep the Faith has always given support to both the Fraternity and the Society. I have personally been involved in the organization and promotion of KTF-sponsored forums for both organizations -- including, most recently, a communion breakfast in New York City for the Fraternity and a debate between Michael Jones and Michael Davies in which Davies defended the Society against the charge of schism.

Until Father Devillers of the Fraternity came to Pequannock and confirmed that Bishop Rodimer has given the Fraternity permission to provide the traditional Mass and sacraments at the Chapel -- without any requirement of control over the property -- I was one of those who thought that a so-called "independent" priest was our best option. But after Father Devillers came, I had to confront a question to which I found I had no reasonable answer:

If the hierarchy of the Church is offering to accommodate our existence as a Tridentine chapel, served by non-diocesan traditional Catholic priests who have agreed to come on a trial basis subject to our vote; and if that offer contains no requirement that we surrender the property to the diocese -- how can Catholics who profess to be in communion with Rome simply spurn such an offer without even attempting to make it work?

Our whole justification for attending Mass at independent chapels has been that a state of "emergency" exists in the Church which makes it morally impossible for traditional Catholics to attend Mass elsewhere. In other words, we are supposed to be attending OLFC out of absolute necessity because there is no other alternative being offered by Rome, not because we prefer it this way.

Now, who are the two most prominent expounders and defenders of the position that a state of "emergency" or "necessity" exists which justifies recourse to an independent chapel (or a Pius X chapel) by traditional Catholics? One of them is Michael Davies. Mr. Davies, as everyone knows, literally wrote the book on the liturgical revolution and has been a key defender of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of Pius X on grounds of "emergency." What does Mr. Davies say about the offer which has been extended to us? In a letter to me dated December 20, 1993, he wrote as follows:

As long as you retain control of the chapel there is no possible way that you could lose . . . I think that getting the Fraternity priest on a diocesan-recognized basis would give great potential for growth and could be an historic move. If the people don't accept this option on at least a trial basis they must be crazy.

Regarding the specific question whether we can claim that a state of emergency -- our only reason for remaining independent -- still exists in view of the bishop's offer to permit Fraternity priests to serve OLFC, Mr. Davies wrote me on January 24,1994 as follows:

You are very fortunate in having the prospect of two such fine priests as Father Ashley and Father Buckley [of the Fraternity] come to serve you. I know them both and would be delighted to have either as my own pastor. As you know, Father Ross was kind enough to express some confidence in my judgment, and I am quite certain that he would go for the St. Peter option without hesitation, not simply because it provides the parish that he built up with a foolproof guaranteed future, but because it makes theological sense. We are entitled to act outside diocesan structures in a state of emergency, but it is hardly Catholic to do so where an unconditional offer has been made like the one your parish has received. If the bishop had wanted the property handed over to him as a condition I would have advised against accepting but for me the fact that he has not done so removes any reason for refusing.

The other prominent exponent of the "state of emergency" justification is Count Neri Capponi, who wrote an authoritative defense of the 1988 consecrations by Archbishop Lefebvre. Count Capponi argued that the consecrations were not schismatic in themselves, but were justified under the 1983 Code of Canon Law by the

Archbishop's sincere belief that the consecrations were urgently necessary to protect the Faith. You may have read that Count Capponi recently obtained a reversal of the "excommunication" of a group of Pius X supporters in Hawaii. In a letter to me dated January 27,1994, Count Capponi said this about whether the bishop's offer could be rejected on grounds that there is still a "state of necessity" for us:

If the bishop's offer of reconciliation and the services of a priest of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter are refused, those who continue to celebrate Masses attended by the Society of St. Pius X cannot any longer claim to be Acting in a state of necessity as foreseen by canon 1323 n. 4.

I have also spoken to prominent traditional priests such as Msgr. Charles Moss and Father John Perricone (who is now saying Tridentine Masses at three different locations in New York City), as well as Mrs. Mary Kraychy, head of the Coalition in Support of Ecclesia Dei, and Chuck Wilson, founder of the St. Joseph Foundation, a canon law apostolate devoted to defending the rights of traditional Catholics around the world, including Pius X Society members. Their answer was unanimous: You must in conscience take the opportunity that has been given to you. In fact, I could not find one leader of the movement to restore the Traditional Mass who said we would be wise to reject it -- not one!

A few years ago some of the self-appointed doctors of the Church in the traditional movement laughed when quiet, humble Mary Kraychy began her little movement to restore the traditional Mass in keeping with the Holy Father's wishes as expressed in Ecclesia Dei. An 'insult Mass" they called it, with pharisaical contempt -- as if any Mass offered to God in the traditional rite could possibly be an insult. Now, there are over 300 traditional Masses being said each week across the nation, and more are being added weekly (including Father Perricone's three Masses). Each of these beautiful Masses brings untold graces which can only further the movement to restore Tradition. While others have been grumbling, complaining and fruitlessly bashing the bishops over their coffee for the past few years, Mary -- and people like her -- were obtaining those graces for the rest of us and building momentum for our cause.

In Vienna, Ohio, there is a little independent traditional chapel whose pastor was the late Fr. John Roach. After Fr. Roach passed away the chapel was thrown into turmoil, just as ours was when Fr. Ross was taken from us. In fact, their situation and ours are remarkably similar. The members of that chapel have now been given permission by their bishop to be served by the Fraternity of St. Peter, without ownership or control of the property by the diocese. (the property will be leased to the Fraternity by the chapel corporation). The Remnant reported this good news in its January issue as follows:

YET ANOTHER TRIDENTINE PARISH IN THE MAKING

The memory of the staunch defender of tradition and Catholicism and good friend of The Remnant, the late Father John Roach of Vienna, Ohio, has been blessed this week by the news that the parish he founded and built from nothing, Queen of the Holy Rosary Church, is soon to become a completely Tridentine parish. Under the auspices of the Fraternity of St. Peter, this parish will become (God willing) the third completely Tridentine parish in North America. God bless Fr. Roach for his ceaseless defense of the Faith while he was on this earth, and let us pray for the success of the Fraternity of St. Peter in keeping alive the cause Fr. Roach championed so many years ago May they never compromise his work in any way.

Notice that The Remnant -- the most fiercely traditional of all Catholic publications -- calls this development a blessing and asks us to pray for the success of the Fraternity, not to condemn what the members of Queen of the Holy Rosary Church have done as a "sellout" or a "betrayal" or a "conspiracy" to destroy the true Faith.

The Remnant saw the permission given to the Fraternity by the bishop in Ohio as a blessing on the memory of Father Roach, not a betrayal of it. Isn't it possible that the permission which has been given to the Fraternity in the diocese of Paterson is a blessing on the memory of Father Ross? Isn't it also possible that the opportunity before us is a heavenly reward for the perseverance of Father Ross, Father Wickens and Father Eugene in defending and preserving Tradition all these years? And where Father Wickens is concerned, don't we owe it to him to use this opportunity to demonstrate to his bishop -- the bishop he still regards as his father, as he told us from the pulpit -- that there is nothing to fear from a traditional chapel in the diocese of Newark; that Father Wickens' priestly ministry should finally be given its due recognition by the Church?

Or should we just retreat into our little bunker in Pequannock, N.J., stubbornly refusing to come out under any conditions, because that's the way we like it?

Each of us will have to vote his conscience on February 13th. Before you vote, ask yourself in conscience if it is really morally impossible for you to attend a chapel served by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. If such a chapel were established near OLFC, could you really claim before God that you had no choice but to drive past the Fraternity's chapel to attend OLFC under the auspices of an "independent" priest or the Society of St. Pius X?

We came to Our Lady of Fatima Chapel because we had to, not because we prefer to. Protestants do what they prefer, Catholics do what they must. Must we reject the Fraternity without even a trial? Unless we can say that we must reject them, we are not entitled to do so -- not if we claim to be Catholics who seek union with the Holy Father in every way we can without danger to our faith. The same Pope who gave us Veritatis Splendor, a masterpiece of Catholic orthodoxy, also gave us the Fraternity of St Peter. Who are we to pick and choose the gifts of the Holy Spirit presented to us through the Vicar of Christ?

On February 13th I hope and pray that every one of us does what he must.

O Mary, Help of Christians, Pray for us!

St. Joseph, Pray for us!

(Signature)

Howard J. Walsh

This letter shows that honest Catholics, when the Church recognizes their concerns, will readily respond by coming back under Rome. But it also shows something else; something that is apparent only through extrapolation. That is, that if these people believed the Society to be legitimate in all its operations, then why not continue with it? What would be the need to come back under Rome as such, for the Society insists that it is operating now, that is, legitmately, under Church law? That Mr. Walsh, as so many other Catholics, has an imperfect understanding of the matter of "necessity" is without question (http://sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id88.html - scroll down to Necessity).  But taken to its logical conclusion, the great unspoken is that they come back under Rome because they know that ultimately they must remain with the barque of Peter. They know the Society is going no where; that with the passing of so many years, Rome shows no inclination of, indeed, it can not, and will not, do so, bending to the will of the Society and its schismatic demands. When the voting was done, this chapel rejected the Society by about a 2 to 1 margin.