So, About the SSPX Episcopal Consectations...

Some Informal Thoughts

It was recently announced that the Society of Saint Pius X would have a bit of a repeat of the 1988 Écône consecrations that resulted in the latae sententiae excommunication (incurred on June 30, 1988, declared on July 1, 1988) of the founder of the SSPX, Marcel Lefebvre, collaborator Antônio de Castro Mayer, and the four men consecrated.

It has caused much discussion online from both the pro- and anti-SSPX lines. I have mixed feelings about the SSPX in general, and some of the questions surrounding their canonical state go beyond my personal competence, but I thought it would be helpful to highlight a few appropriate reflections.

First, if you do not sympathize with the good Archbishop, then there is something wrong with you.

An eye-opening experience of mine was reading Archbishop Lefebvre’s Open Letter to Confused Catholics. I believe that many contemporary “traditional Catholics” have this notion that things get worse as time goes on. Things on the ground in 1970 must be better than 1990, and 1990 must be better than 2010, etc., but this is nowhere near the case. Not even close.

Reading Lefebvre actually gave me a well-needed white pill when I was a new Catholic. The problems I saw on the ground were nowhere NEAR the problems that were on the ground in the immediate post-conciliar period. Things have gotten better (much better!) on the ground. That is undeniable (unless one is quite concerned with the last bit of drama from Rome).

Further, I think Lefebvre, as someone who did live in a different world and in a “different” Church than we do, saw the situation as apocalyptic. Again, quite different from those of us who are already “used to” the problems existing. We can discuss whether this was a rational thought or not (in hindsight, it is easy to judge), but I do not think many of us can even imagine the weight of the age. It was liable to strain all and break some.

If and when I speak of Lefebvre’s decision negatively, it is not with any less admiration for his person than is due. He was a holy priest and apostolic bishop in an impossible situation. I cannot but admire Lefebvre, even while I firmly believe that every Catholic should admit that his decision was the wrong one.

While this may be controversial, I do not think Lefebvre in his final days would have failed to sympathize with those who would ultimately disagree with his decision. The decision that he made was one that was made after a long period of reflection, wherein both options were weighed in great detail. This is not the behavior of a man who would not sympathize with those who take the opposite opinion.

Second, it is never permissible to act contrary to the will of the Pope by performing consecrations.

Now for the other part. I believe that it is undeniable that it is never permissible to act contrary to the will of the Pope by performing consecrations.

In order to understand this, we need to make two distinctions. First, between that law which is merely positive and that law which is divine. Second, between what is beside an express intention and that which is simply contrary to an express intention.

Certain laws of the Church are established on the mere basis of the will of the legislator. The obligation of these laws can be formally dispensed and can even be ignored in the face of certain degrees of necessity. The obligation of other laws cannot be dispensed because they are not based on the will of the legislator, but on divine or natural law. As an easy example, it is a precept of ecclesiastical law to go to Mass on Sundays, whereas it is a precept of divine law to worship God. If one were to be in a state of necessity, one could forego the precept to go to Mass on a Sunday, e.g., if one were morally certain that it would cause one to fall into grave sin. Yet, if the conditions required one to fulfill the precept to worship God, then this could NEVER be dispensed or otherwise foregone without sin (whether the guilt for such a sin is incurred in the internal forum—God is the judge, de internis non iudicat Ecclesia).

Second, it is one thing to act beside the express will of the Roman Pontiff (which, as I note, is not really “beside” per se, only non-express) and another thing to act contrary to the express will of the Roman Pontiff. This distinction should be understood easily enough. It has not always been required by law to seek an explicit mandate in order to consecrate a bishop (a formal process was only developed over time in order to better regulate the establishment of the hierarchy, although tacitly—or, rather, implicitly—it can hardly be held that the permission of the Roman Pontiff to the process was absent). In those cases, such a consecration would not be according to the will of the Roman Pontiff, but simply beside the will of the Roman Pontiff. As another example, if it were simply impossible to seek his mandate and there were some pressing need in order to supply a bishop, then the same would be in effect (although, as noted above, strictly speaking, this is only improperly said to be outside his will). Yet, it is another thing altogether when such a mandate is sought and it is expressly denied.

This is set out clearly by Ven. Pius XII in the encyclical Ad apostolorum principis, written to the Church in China. The Church in China during that time was suffering persecution at the hands of the Communist government. Ven. Pius XII was quick to refute claims that Catholics were in any way bad citizens of the nation, but, to the contrary, were first in loyalty to and love for the nation.

Yet, there were certain errors that had affected some within the Chinese Church, rebuked earlier in his encyclical Ad sinarum gentem. Due to the continual presence of a “missionary hierarchy” in the nation, some complained that there ought instead to be a native hierarchy. Ven. Pius XII, while stating that it would, of course, be ideal to have such a hierarchy, held that it was simply not practical to have a hierarchy free from missionaries from other nations. Further—and this is the important part—it would be contrary to divine right to seek such a hierarchy in an autonomous manner.

Part of this so-called autonomy was that they sought to elect their bishops and have them consecrated. There is nothing, of course, wrong with certain dioceses electing their bishops as a process sanctioned by the law of the Church (as had been done in certain parts of the Church in the past, even in Rome herself! cf. n. 38). Yet, such elections were not conceded by Rome (due to the obvious imprudence that would be involved in the matter, since it was based on socialistic notions of right and governance, cf. n. 43).

While this situation seems quite distinct in its material circumstances from the consecrations done by Lefebvre, it has an affinity to the situation insofar as Ven. Pius XII takes the opportunity to treat the question ex professo of consecrations done against the express will of the Roman Pontiff for a number of paragraphs.

As noted by Fr. D’Angona, the letter does not condemn this as a mere violation of positive law, but, inasmuch as it is simply contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, as contrary to divine law itself. The relevant comment is in paragraph 37, which describes such consecrations as “contrary to all right and law” (cf. n. 48 as well). The phrase contra ius fasque in context (cf. St. Pius X’s Iamdudum, n. 7; Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus, n. 6, etc., as well) can hardly be interpreted as not indicating such a contrariety.

EDIT: Here is more about the second point.