All the while, things had begun to happen in Campos with the Priestly Union of Saint John Baptist Mary Vianney. In June, 2001, Campos sent me a letter asking, "Please, please, don’t break with Rome. You have to study what they propose to you." I answered, "We never broke off: We just said we suspended discussion. We are going to wait, that’s all." Campos replied, "You are better positioned than us. You know what’s going on, so we will follow you."

   On July 15th, however, one of the members of Cardinal Castrillón’s Congregation for the Clergy, a Brazilian Redemptorist named Guimaraes, [Note: no relation to or association with Atila Sinke Guimarães] paid a visit to Campos and proposed a separate agreement. A separate proposal was obviously a device to separate Campos and the Society. I did not want that; I wanted to have one package. We are much stronger with one front than with diverse ones.

   Rome advanced a proposal to give them a bishop to be consecrated in the Cathedral of Campos by Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos with co-consecrators Bishop Rangel and the local bishop, whose name is Guimaraes (the same as that of the member of the Congregation of the Clergy). Castrillón’s envoy promised that the bishop will be one the members of the Priestly Union, that it will have him as an auxiliary, that it would get the same deal as the Society of Saint Pius X, for all of Brazil.

   In a letter dated 18 July, Campos wrote me: "Listen, the Pope wants to give us a bishop. If we oppose this, we are schismatics! We have to accept this will of the Pope." This letter, however, was hand-delivered to me by Fr. Rifan on September 12th! In the intervening seven weeks, the deal was sealed. The letter requested my approval for what Campos was planning to do. By the time I got the letter, the deed had been done. In any case, my answer would have been, "No, I cannot in conscience agree with what you are doing. You are very imprudent. You don’t look at all the circumstances. You are now dividing Tradition. You don’t pay attention to what’s happening in the Church. You are crushing yourself."

   In September, 2001, I asked Bishop de Galaretta to visit Campos and speak with the Priestly Union, which he did, but without any fruit. The priests were already absolutely decided and there was nothing to do. They defended themselves by saying it was a question of prudence. Period. End of discussion. End of October, I go there also. I speak with Bishop Rangel. I try to tell them, "What are you doing? Look at what is being done to the Fraternity of Saint Peter right now!" Nothing. Nothing! They did not want to talk with me. They had decided. It was very clear. They said, "Well, you don’t trust them. We do." What can you say?

   During all these months –September, October, November –Fr. Rifan was in Rome, but he told me that all he did was give the Campos proposal to Rome, that’s all. There were different rumors, contradictory. Some said that the thing was done; some said that nothing had happened. Crazy! I asked Bishop Rangel, "What’s happening?" He said they had given their proposal to the Pope for him to approve. Once the Pope okayed it, it was transmitted to a commission of cardinals who studied the matter and said, "Okay." Then it was sent to the Secretary of State who studied it and made difficulties....You see how everything is upside-down. I thought, when the Pope says okay, it should be okay; but, obviously it’s not. Common sense tells us they would start with the lower authorities and proceed up to the head, not the contrary. It was foreseen that the Holy Father would sign the agreement before his departure for Kazakhstan on September 25th, but it was actually signed on December 25th!

What Kind of an Agreement?
Fr. Georges Cottier: "Little by little we must expect other steps: for example, that they [Campos] also participate in concelebrations in the reformed rite."

   What was signed? There was initial confusion. Cardinal Castrillón called Fr. Simoulin on December 26th to say the Pope had signed an agreement with Campos to establish something like a military ordinariate [which would give the Priestly Union its own bishop with true jurisdiction over his subjects –Ed.]. But it’s not true. The agreement is to establish an apostolic administration [which receives only an auxiliary bishop while the local ordinary retains all Episcopal jurisdiction –Ed.]. So Cardinal Castrillón, who is the one who is supposed to know what is happening, one day after the signature, tells us something wrong! This was curious. According to what I heard, however, Cardinal Castrillón went over the head of Cardinal Sodano, the Secretary of State, who wanted to grant to the Priestly Union only what was granted to the Fraternity of Saint Peter [which is neither a military ordinariate nor an apostolic administration, having no bishop whatsoever –Ed.]. Cardinal Castrillón went to see the Pope and got the apostolic administration for the Priestly Union. However, the arrangement is now restricted to only the diocese of Campos, and is no longer for all of Brazil as was first promised.

   What about the bishop that was promised? On paper it’s still promised. The letter of the Pope says, "You will have a successor." But the agreement only speaks of an auxiliary, somebody to help Bishop Rangel now while he’s sick, without any guarantees for the future! During his telephone conversation with Cardinal Castrillón on December 26th, Fr. Simoulin asked about this new bishop. The Cardinal replied, "Well, they will have to follow the normal law of the Church. They will have to ask the Congregation for bishops." This Congregation, by the way, is the one under which Campos has been placed. It is headed by Giovanni Battista Cardinal Re, the one of whom I spoke earlier, who in 1986 said that the Latin Mass is only temporarily granted, that the general law of the Church is the New Mass, and we will have to go back to it. Campos is under this head!

   In any case, the normal law of the Church for the nomination of a bishop is to choose from among the priests of the entire country, not just the diocese. The Pope is free to choose anyone. So when the Cardinal says that the choice of a bishop for the Priestly Union will be bound by the normal law, it means that Rome will not necessarily choose anyone from the apostolic administration of Saint John Baptist Mary Vianney! Bishop Perl has already said it very clearly: "The bishop will not be Fr. Rifan; it will be a bi-ritual bishop," that is, a bishop who celebrates both old and new Masses. "This bishop," said Bishop Perl, "will little by little bring the priests of the apostolic administration to the New Mass, and so also the faithful. This administration will have only a temporary existence and the whole will be re-integrated into the diocese." That’s what Bishop Perl says.

   Bishop Rangel has been given the titular diocese of Zarna, in North Africa, as part of his title. Zarna is the old Carthage –Carthago –the famous enemy city of old Rome. In fact, the old Romans had a saying: "Carthago delenda est –Carthage has to be destroyed." You can be sure this choice of title for Bishop Rangel was not by coincidence. Rome likes to make this kind of play on words.

   Fr. Georges Cottier, the Pope’s personal theologian, commented that the important step here was the acceptance of the Council. Now that this was done, "Little by little we must expect other steps: for example, that they also participate in concelebrations in the reformed rite [the New Mass –Ed.]. However, we must not be in a hurry. What is important is that in their hearts there no longer be rejection. Communion found again in the Church has an internal dynamism of its own that will mature." Rome expects the entire administration to go over to the New Mass.

What Does the Society Say About the Campos-Vatican Agreement?
...It is impossible to see in the recognition of Campos a recognition of Tradition.

   There are two reproaches we make against Campos.

   The first is that they did not request any preliminaries from Rome as the Society did. That first step was necessary. Before you build the span of a bridge you must build solid footings on the banks to support it. Campos dismissed this step because they were in a hurry to have the thing. Now it has its beautiful car, and the nails are on the road.

   The second reproach is the affair of the second Assisi Prayer Meeting [Jan. 24, 2002]. This affair of Assisi is such a scandal that it requires anybody who cares about the salvation of souls to stand up and say, "No way." Bishop Rangel did not stand up. The priests of Saint John Baptist Mary Vianney did not stand up; they did not make any statement about Assisi.

   Do you know what happened there? The different groups were asked, "What kind of room do you want?" So, for example, the Zoroastrians said, "We need a window because we are going to make a fire." So they got their room with a window. The Moslems wanted a room facing Mecca. They got it. The Jews said, "We want a room that has never been blessed." This is a direct denial of Christ because anything which is blessed is always blessed in the name of Christ. To say, "We want a room that has never been blessed," means, "We want something which has nothing to do with Christ!" What did Rome do? I don’t know, but they got their room.

   All the crucifixes were removed from the monastery! And the crucifixes which they were not able to remove they covered. This was exactly the meaning of some drawings circulating in 1986 about the first Assisi Meeting where the Pope is shown saying to Christ, "Go away. We have no place for you here." In order to have this meeting of other religions, Rome was obliged to remove Christ. It is horrible. It is really the abomination. They removed the Essential –the true God, the only Mediator, the only One through whom we can get anything good! They removed Him! And when you think that the animists at Assisi took a hen and they cut off the head of the hen —that is the way you can get peace? Oh, please! Unbelievable, the stories. It is absolutely ridiculous, but it is not only ridiculous; it is really a sacrilege, a blasphemy. The Society is definitely against it. From Campos, nothing! At the first Assisi Meeting, Bishop de Castro Mayer co-signed a letter with Archbishop Lefebvre against the meeting. They were together. They manifested this opposition. Now, the Society is alone. Campos doesn’t say anything anymore. Psychologically speaking, it’s perfectly understandable. You cannot smash the hand which has given you such a beautiful car, can you?

   What kind of Rome do we have when it can sign an agreement with Campos and in the same week can do something like Assisi II? They definitely will not say "We recognize Tradition" in any universal sense. But Campos is contented because Rome has recognized Tradition in Campos. But has it, really? If Rome truly recognized Tradition anywhere it wouldn’t be able to have an Assisi II, the very contrary of Tradition. It is impossible to see in the recognition of Campos a recognition of Tradition.

   On the contrary, Assisi II was extended to include Tradition! Rome is saying: "We have a place for the Zoroastrians, for Jews, for Moslems, for animists, Buddhists, Hindus, ..and we have a place for you!" That’s it. Rome has a place in the zoo for Tradition.

   But that’s not the position of the Society of Saint Pius X. Our position is that there is only one truth, the eternal truth. This truth is exclusive. Truth will not allow its contradiction to be made equal to it. In mathematics, it’s clear. Any student who would say, "Two plus two equals five," would fail, but ecumenism says, "It is whatever figure you like." We say, "No, it is four, period." Only one number is the true one. We say all the other religions are wrong, only one is true. This truth is exclusive. It is the only one by which we can be saved. All the others are just cheating the people. They cannot lead to God. And, I may say, just looking at Assisi II helps us to see the enormous problem in the Church today. The Society is not the problem; the problem is in Rome.