Traditionalist sites (like Pro Multis) have referred to St. Pius X’s letter on “the Sillon”, so I read it recently. Oddly the letter is only available at an ironically-named traditionalist site (www.the-pope.com) that “finds sedevacantism to be a reasonable position”. Disturbingly, the site uses the same format found on the Vatican site – making it appear that the letter is housed on the Vatican site. That being said, the style of the letter does seem consistent with other writings of St. Pius X that I’ve read. Another mark of its authenticity is its sharing of that time’s disdain for concise communication.

When I started to read the letter, I had no real idea what “the Sillon” was. I’ve found very little outside the letter to elaborate. It appears that the Sillon started in France as a Catholic youth movement near the beginning of the 20th century. It was dedicated to improving the social order – especially for the poor. Consequently, the saint says of them, “they are really professors of social, civic, and religious morals; and whatever modifications they may introduce in the organization of the Sillonist movement, we have the right to say that the aims of the Sillon, its character and its action belong to the field of morals which is the proper domain of the Church.”

The first salient point regarding Sillon is that it advanced a particular set of moral teachings and it appears that those teachings eventually came to contradict revealed truth.

Over time, the Sillon group expanded in geographic and social scope, taking in many people who did not share the foundational Catholic beliefs of the organization. Over time, the organization came to shift to cater to the new members. Clergy and bishops called for Sillon to return to Catholic orthodoxy, without success.

The saint continues: “Even if their doctrines were free from errors, it would still be a very serious breach of Catholic discipline to decline obstinately the direction of those who have received from heaven the mission to guide individuals and communities along the straight path of truth and goodness.”

The second salient point regarding Sillon is that it rejected the direction of ecclesiastical authorities.

And further, “they reject the doctrine recalled by Leo XIII on the essential principles of society”

The third salient point is their rejection of duly promulgated teachings of the Church.

“Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being.”

This is likely to be one of the quotes most ardently embraced by the traditionalist community. I heartily agree with this quote. Where the traditionalists and the contemporary Church part ways is in the method by which the Church is to express that zeal. (Much more to come on this topic in days ahead.) The fourth salient point regarding Sillon is that it appeared to evidence indifferentism.

Things continue to get worse: “this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions”

Sillon, it appears, was removed almost completely from its Catholic origins – advocating something akin to anarcho-syndicalism in the secular and religious realms. The fifth salient point is that Sillon set itself up as superior to the ecclesiastical authorities.

The last quote to which I direct your attention: “As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors.”

I agree that we too easily look only at one attribute of Jesus – either His immense mercy or His perfect justice. In Him mercy and justice meet – a paradox too great for the mind of man. We know both that, like the woman caught in adultery, we are forgiven and that we are called to sin no more. We are given clear direction from Jesus as to what we are to do. St. Pius X gives four particular examples of what we are to do:
1. belong to His flock;
2. accept His doctrine;
3. practice virtue; and
4. accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors.

Contrast that with the five points showing how the Sillon was in error
1. advocating moral teachings that were not in keeping with revealed truth;
2. rejecting the guidance and direction of ecclesiastical authorities;
3. rejecting specific duly promulgated teachings of the Church;
4. evidencing indifferentism; and
5. deeming itself superior to the ecclesiastical authorities.

There’s a pretty clear contrast between Sillon (or, for that matter, a number of other dissenting groups who can be fairly characterized with one or more of the five traits of Sillon) and the faithful Church. That difference doesn’t comprise an attack on Vatican II’s teaching of the relationship of the Church with outsiders, which I hope to detail in the days ahead.

I look forward to continuing this discussion.