How the SSPX Persecuted the Van der Putten Brothers

Introduction

In December of 2000, Pope John Paul II gave Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos a mandate to negotiate an end to "Lefebvrite schism" (as some call it). And so, the Cardinal began a series of discussions with the SSPX in the hope that both sides could reach some sort of agreement.

What Rome offered the SSPX is more than what Archbishop Lefebvre had ever asked for. At first, Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, was delighted at the proposal from Rome, but then later he decided to reject it.

Fr. Benedict Van der Putten

The rejection of Rome's offer made more than one SSPX priest wonder if Bishop Fellay had made the right decision. Fr. Benedict Van der Putten was among them. Because he had questioned a decision of his superior, Fr. Van der Putten soon experienced things he had never expected from a religious congregation who tells everyone that they are so strict on protecting and defending the Laws of the Church.

As Fr. Van der Putten relates in his letter to friends:

The SSPX priest who was advising Fr. Van der Putten on the question of the negotiations was forbidden to talk to him again.
Fr. Van Der Putten was denied a leave of absence to set his conscience at rest regarding the question of the negotiations.
Fr. Van Der Putten found out from a priest in the Fraternity of St. Peter that the SSPX was making untrue accusations against the Fraternity.
Fr. Van Der Putten decided to talk to Cardinal Ratzinger to find out more about the question.
On the day Fr. Van Der Putten was to leave to meet with Cardinal Ratzinger, he received a fax from Bishop Fellay, expelling him from the SSPX.

The case of Fr. Benedict Van der Putten is a clear case of:

the abuse of the law
the lack of due process
the lack of basic justice

on the part of the SSPX superiors.

Fr. Benedict Van der Putten was expelled from the SSPX:

totally based on rumours about him
without Bishop Fellay talking to Fr. Van der Putten to get the facts straight
without Bishop Fellay giving Fr. Van der Putten any chance to defend himself

But the abuse of the law and basic justice in this case did not end there.

Fr. Angelo Van der Putten

Fr. Benedict Van der Putten's younger brother, Angelo, is also a priest with the SSPX.

Based solely on his brother's situation, Fr. Angelo Vander Putten was:

censured by Fr. Scott, Superior of the SSPX in the USA, and by Bishop Fellay
punished without evidence
prevented from entering churches of the SSPX in the USA
further punished by being sent to India, no questions asked or recourse to appeal

As with the case of his brother, Fr. Angelo Van der Putten's superiors:

ignored his detailed defence
acted on rumours and not on facts or the explanations of the person they were accusing

Conclusion

The case of Frs. Benedict and Angelo Van der Putten clearly shows that the Superiors of the SSPX abuse Church Law, due process, and basic justice in administering discipline.

This case is just a growing body of evidence:

Of what we may call the errors of the SSPX.
That these errors are not just isolated incidents, but are typical of how the SSPX operates.
That these errors continue without correction by SSPX Superiors, suggesting a tacit approval.
That it is not a question of personalities or of misunderstandings, but of accepted policies and practices within the SSPX.
That Priests leave the SSPX:

because of the errors
because they recognize that no-one in authority is prepared to change things
because they witness the lack of justice and due process in handing out censures

The point of all this is that the priests of the SSPX, along with the people that support them must begin to ask themselves:

When will I be next to be punished for doing nothing wrong, and without any appeal or chance to defend myself?

Obviously SSPX priests are not free from receiving unjust censures, when they have done nothing wrong, and so much the more seminarians and laypeople can expect the same. The climate of fear that exists within the SSPX due to such censures being handed out is a powerful means of controlling subordinates.