The Catholic information portal managed by lay people and which is available in two languages – kath.ch for German-speakers and cath.ch for French-speaking people – claims editorial independence. However, it carries out its mission based on a mandate from the Conference of Swiss Bishops, which provides its funding with the support of donors.
Following the first part of the video by Bishop Vitus Huonder, Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Chur, an article from kath.ch, published on April 27, delivered a sober and honest presentation of “My path to the SSPX,” published on YouTube three days earlier.
A Petulant Reaction
On May 1, kath.ch opened its columns to Fr. Heinz Angehrn – who also runs a blog on the same platform – a priest of the diocese of St. Gall, by providing an excerpt from his commentary on the video, of which here is the translation:
“Huonder (Lefebvre!) wants to save the Church by withdrawing a small crowd of faithful to the orthodox Faith (men – women have in fact no rights in this Church) from the wicked modern world to bring them back to the monarchical and patriarchal era before the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man.”
“The true cleric-pastors must graze their sheep there and protect them from harmful developments such as gender, wokism, and everything the devil has in mind. The old Latin liturgy of their leaders, who turn their backs on them, is a balm for their souls and repels evil spirits – in short, a Catholic sect.”
When commenting on this eruption, the pen – or the keyboard – hesitates. One thing is certain: Tradition has no right to consideration or to merciful “dialogue”; it is only worthy of contempt.
A Denunciatory Reaction
On May 3, the new editor-in-chief of kath.ch in turn stepped up to enter the fray with in a violent diatribe against Bishop Huonder. He, in turn, accused the Bishop Emeritus of Chur of launching “serious accusations against the Pope,” of reproaching him “for wanting to eradicate the 'Roman liturgy',” of opposing Pope Francis “in the media.”
For good measure, he accuses him of scandal by having “left the Roman Catholic Church” and having passed over “to the Society of Saint Pius X” which is situated “outside the Church.” In his emotion, he successively asked for the intervention of the Vatican, then that of the apostolic nuncio in Switzerland, and finally for the opening of an apostolic inquiry.
A primary reason for this bitter zeal seems to be to divert attention. Our author indeed writes: “Instead of accusing pastoral agents… of ‘liturgical abuse’ and having them controlled by the Vatican authorities, we should rather put the traditionalists under surveillance. Because they represent a danger.” However, the liturgical abuse in question was nothing less than a “concelebration” by two women, which led to an investigation by the bishop.
The second reason is fear: progressivism is running out of steam while Tradition survives. Progressives would like a condemnation to clear the field and to reassure themselves.
Finally, the third reason is blindness. Obsessed with a vision of Catholicism totally integrated into the modern world, they have lost their faith. This is why they do not support the reminder of Catholic truths.
All of this will not prevent Bishop Huonder's testimony from continuing, from producing fruit in the souls who are asking themselves vital questions about the current evolution of the Church - or rather of the men of the Church -, and from helping these souls work out their salvation in our troubled times.